ASSESSMENT COURT

Patea Mail, Volume LII, 27 February 1931, Page 3

ASSESSMENT COURT

BOROUGH VALUATIONS. TWO OBJECTIONS MADE. A fitting ol the Assessment Court \v:is held on Wednesday before Air, J. H. Salmon, S.M., to consider two objections to the borough valuations,, the objectors being Mr. S. C. Mcßae and Mr. L. Honeyhehi. Mr. Mcßae objected to the 'borough valuation of £3B annual valuation in respect to his property of 21 acres, and Mr. Honey field objected to the valuation of £302 placed on his property of 31b acres. Mr. Hamel (Hamel and Rutherfor) appeared for the Borough Counc.il and Mr. T. E. Roberts for both appellants. In evidence, Mr. Mcßae said his property was right on the borough boundary and was only used for sheep and was subject to sand drift, and would curry three ewes to the acre. Being outside the drainage area, it was of no use for residential purposes. There were no buildings at all on (he property. Mr. F. Ramsbottom gave evidence iu support of Mr. Mcßae’s objection, amt corroborated his statement with regard to the Carrying capacity of the land. Gome years the grass dried up owing to the sandy nature of the soil so that all stock had to (be taken off. In cross-examination, Mr. Mcßae said ho was not quite sure what he had paid for the land. It was far back when, he purchased it. He did not think he, had paid £4OO for the property. Mr. Ho-ncy/leld, in evidence, said he based his valuation on the carrying capacity of the land, which was about 500 ewes. The land required to be carefully looked after on account of sand drift. In reply to Mr. Hamel, witness said that ho was not aware that the Government valuation was based on an incorrect area, the property being set down as 295 acres instead of 315 acres. He had not objected last year. Witness had owned the property for about 20 years as a partnership property up to a few years ago. He had had nothing to do with the value of the property when the partnership was dissolved. He accepted the values on 'compulsion. He would not deny that the property was valued at £9450. His Worship: It seems rather high. Witness, continuing, said he did not run cattle on the property. He did not know if there was a keen demand for land of the nature of the land in question for winter grazing. He would be prepared to let the land at £1 Is 4d per acre if he got a sound practical man. He was prepared to swear that. Counsel said ho would ask for an adjournment to give him an opportunity of producing th|c valuer. The valuation placed by appellant on his property was an absurd one. In reply to Mr. Heberts, witness said if ho were letting the land on a yearly rental he would take particular care as to whom lie let it to, as it had to bo well looked after on account of sand drifts, etc. He might get more than £1 Is 4d per acre from some persons, but the land would deteriorate unless they got a suitable man, who would look after it properly. Mr. Roberts said he did not think it was a case for an adjournment, a? the objection had been put in in the statutory time. His Worship said so far as Mr, Honoylield’s case had gone he might not, uphold him on the figures he had submitted; on the other hand, he might think the Borough Council’s valuation too high. Mr, Hamel said he felt very ,strongly that the valuation should stand. Continuing, His Worship said that the question of farm lands in borough boundaries had been subject to great difficulties. Otafei was a case in point. Gome years ago lie had been appointed to a commission to 'consider the question of the value of farm lands in that borough. Consequently ho was now familiar with the position of farm lands in boroughs. With regard to Mr. Mcßae’s case, he would allow his objection, and the valuation would be reduced from £2B to £2O. With regard to Mr. Honcytleld’s case that would be adjourned to the next sitting of the court on March 12.