ASSESSMENT COURT

Southland Times, Issue 17792, 22 July 1916, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT

COUNTY' VALUATIONS CONSIDERED. The Assessment Court opened yesterday for the purpose of hearing objections to the recent valuations in the ridings cf Awarua and Wallacctown. Messrs G, Cruickshank, S.M., H. J. Middleton, and John Hanley were the presiding assessors. Of a total roll of objectors amounting to 2 per cent, of the propertyowners ln‘ the areas under notice fully half failed to appear, so that the number of landowners who placed their positions before the Court was only 1 per cent, of the valuation roll. Following are the details of the objections and decisions:— J. 11. Muir stated that he was the owner of 330 acres situated in the Dacre district. His unimproved value was £6 Ss per acre and, in his opinion, it should not exceed £5. His Improvements were valued at £759, but he had no objections tb' offcr to that. He paid £9 for the' place about four years ago, and had improved it to the extent of about £740 since then. After considering these facts the Court Intimated that the valuation was in reality lower than the true value to the owner. The valuation was accordingly sustained. Philip Roger (Wright’s Bush) stated that he was the owner of 126 acres, which were valued at about £ls capital value. He gave £l2 for it two years ago. Witness objected to the unimproved value, which was £lO per acre. Another section of 180 acres which he had had seven or eight years, when he gave £ll 10s for it, was valued similarly. The valuer contended that the improved value was on a par with that of adjoining properties, but Mr Roger stated that his land was damper and rougher. The Court reduced the unimproved value to £B. YV. H. Oughton, of Waimatuku, objected to his unimproved value being increased from £8 to £lO. His land was practically all liable to floods, and was the only farm in the district that was so situated. After hearing the valuer the Court reduced the unimproved value on three-fourths (330 acres) of the property to £B, the remaining 110 acres to Remain as at present. j ’ Alexander McKenzie, who owned 481 acres in the Waimatuku district, thought that £8 would be ample for his unimproved value. At present lie was rated at £lO. His land was not all so low as Mr Oughton's but a good portion of it was. The valuer having given evidence, the Court granted a decrease of £1 per acre on the lowest lying 200 acres. Dugald McPherson, also of the Waimatuku locality, considered that his unimproved value of £9 ought not to he more than £B. Also his Improvements which amounted to £5 In the valuation would be more correctly stated at about £B'. The valuer stated his side of the question, and the Court agreed to a reduction of £1 per acre on the unimproved value. Wm. Spriggs, Wilson’s Crossing, stated that lie was the owner of 241 acres. His valuations were £6 for the unimproved, and £lO 10s for the capital., He purchased the farm some six years ago for £8 10s. He thought that his improvements should be Increased as his unimproved value had been advanced £2 per acre. After hearing the evidence of Mr Jas. George, the valuer, the Court sustained the valuation. John Leonard, owner of 3.19 acres at Dacre, was valued at £7 for the unimproved and £9 10s for the capital. Witness had been in the place for over 20 years, and he thought that the previous valuation of £6 for the unimproved was quite sufficient. His improvements were now valued at £764, previously they had been £396, and he was quite satisfied with the latter figure. After hearing the Department’s evidence the Court sustained the valuation. John Brown, executor in the estate of W. A. Lyon, Waianiwa, objected to the unimproved value of £lO on a section of 45 acres. A more correct estimate would be £B. The Department agreed to this figure, and the valuation was reduced accordingly. ' James A. Burke stated that he wap the lessee of 76 acres in the Dacre district. His unimproved value was £6, but he was of opinion that it should not exceed £4. Eighteen acres of his land was pwamp. The Court, having heard the valuer’s evidence, sustained the valuation. Wm. Macintosh, of Drummond, who was represented by jMr F. G. O'Bierrie, stated that his farm comprised 400 acres freehold. His unimproved value had been Increased from £8 to £.M*. and his capital from £l4 4s to £l6 4s. His objection was not to the figure of the capital value, but to the manner in which it was made up. . In his opinion the unimproved value should be reduced, and the value of improvements increased accord, ingly. A fair thing would be to bring the unimproved value down to £8 again. Witness had been on the place for well over 20 years, and he had done a great deal of work on it since moving in when the land was in its natural state. After examining the valuer and a couple of witnesses who knew Air Macintosh's land in the early days, the Court reduced the unimproved value to £9 and increased (tie improvements accordingly, so as to leave the capital value unaltered. Isaac li. Petrie, the owner of several suburban sections, protested against what he considered an excessive valuation. The land in question had been auctioned and witness had purchased a whole block with the intention of making it his home. The price he paid averaged £53 per section, but since the Government valuation was only £4B per section, Air Petrie endeavoured to impress upon the Court that the sections were really not wortli £53 —they were not even woth £4B. He had bought them at auction, and had run them so high because he particularly wanted them. As to their being valued at £lB each, it was absurd: witness couldn't see why he should be called upon to pay rates ou any valuation in excess of his figure— £39 8s per section. The Court did not see the point and the valuation was sustained.