ASSESSMENT COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9408, 7 April 1902, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

BOROUGH VALUATIONS.

A sitting of the Assessment Court to deal with objections against the Borough valuations was held at .11 a.m. to-day. Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., presided. A total of eleven objections were received from five property holders,.the value of the property in dispute being £496. Two objectors who make seven of the objections to the valuations did not appear when their names were called on. This left but three objectors, the disputed valuation of whose property amounted to £258. The reductions made by the Court amounted to £35 4s. Mr E. D. B. Robinson, ; Borough Valuer, appeared in support of.the valuations. Mr Jas. Rosie objected to the valuation of his property," section 117, corner of Bright street and Gladstone road. Mr R. N. Jones appeared in support- of the objection. The Bench said the objection was iuost informal, and section 20 of the Act had not been complied with. If people would only take the trouble to go to the Council Chambers Mr Robinson would be only too ready to show them the proper form for objections to be made in. It should be understood that the forms would have to be nearer what,was required by the Act in the future, or otherwise the Bench would have to throw the objections out. In regard to Mr Rosie's property, Mr Jones said their contention, was that the valuation should not exceed the present 'rental value, but that it should be less. It should be the rental value less 20 per cent. The annual rental value was £78.""' ">■.* It was going to be suggested that the own*r could get more for the property, and that it was a family arrangement "at present, but this was not correct. Charles Rosie, one of the partners of the firm of C. Rosie and' Co., corner of Gladstone road and Bright street, stated that they paid £78 a year. They had paid part of the rates this year, namely, £4. Witness did not think they would be prepared to pay more for it if they were leasing it from anyone else. fJames Rosie, tailor, the owner of the property in question, stated the rent he received was 30s a week. Harbor and Borough rates amounted to £12 a year. The cost of the building was £330, and the 30s a week returned a fair investment. He was agent for the next shop, late Eure's, and could not obtain 30s for it, as it was considered too far out of the town. If his place was vacant, he did not think he would get 30s a week for it. In reply to Mr Robinson, witness stated that the tenant paid £4 of .the rates,^S[- ._, though he was not bound to do so. It - V was not a family 'arrangement. He had received an offer of over £2 a week for Eure's late shop, but it had only been for a fortnight. Re-examined by Mr Jones, wiiaess stated that the tenant paid £4 of the rates as the value had been raised^ and he considered he was entitled to pay part of the increased rates . fTh^ ?w°\ g rh laluaI aluat°r (Mr Robinson) stated that Mr Cox, photographer, was ' paying £104 annual rental, and his premises were valued at £80. The frontage was the same'as Mr Rosie's. ■ - Mr Jones said the case of Mr Cox was "" not the same1 as Mr Rosie's, as he had dark-rooms and buildings at the back. bnops in the centre of business only paid ??? a cck' and he considered the value , Rosie's, property should be £78, lesf 20 per cent., v - ' »^e Co™t letting value at £100, less 20 per cent, £80. _ The owner ■of section 159, corner of ' * Grey street and Gladstone road&obiected t° the valuation of £26 on his property.--JUr Hubble said he was occupier of the ' property in question, and he was prepared to take £150 for his interest. He was willing to let the house, a two-roomed one, at £26 *■ year, but he did not believe ho could get 10s a week. He paid 7s a t #, r thl? k he had a h °Pe of getting iectio^ S^ "PP*B™l ™ of ob£7o mI t v^ luahons on ""to* IM. hi^M, p°.r*dioon was «*«! for, perhaps Mr Robmseijjwould agree to the 1 re- • ■ W 3i e 9? urt commented on the manner in hsfL^he objections had been laid, thelast one being also informal.