LAND SALES COMMITTEE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 68, Issue 5942, 12 May 1944, Page 2

LAND SALES COMMITTEE

SITTING IN TE AWAMUTU DECISION RESERVED IN TE RORE CASE A ease of considerable interest occupied the attention of the Land Sales Committee at Te Awamutu on Wednesday. Messrs N. A. Ching (chairman), H. O. Mellsop, and J. J. Shallue constituted the Committee, and Mr J. B. Rowe represented the Crown. The case was one in which S. M. Bell and R. A. Bell sought to dispose of a farm of 174 acres at Te Kor e to T. H. Richards. Mr S. S. Preston appeared for the vendors, and Mr B. Malone for Richards. In opening the case Mr Preston said the farm had been in possession of the vendors and their families for for 59 years. They must now sell owing to age and health reasons. The purchaser was a neighbour who for about eight 'years was desirous of buying the property, and asked for the first opportunity to purchase it when it came on to the market. Richards offered £3B per acre as a going concern for the property, and the offer was accepted. In the opinion of counsel it was not sold but given away at the price of £4872 for the land and £1740 for the stock and chattels, making a total value of £6612. The stock and chattels were grossly under-valued, and Richards, who made the offer in good faith, acknowledged that it was too low. Richards was a first-class farmer, and as money was left on the property on mortgage the Bells would like a man like Richards on the farm.. Mr Bertram valued the farm at £37 per acre for the land only. They were prepared to put the price in at £6OOO for the land and £1750 for the stock and chattels, a total value of £7750. Mr Bertram’s figures were most conservative. The vendors placed a great deal on the fact that they wanted a fanner who would farm the property well and thus protect their interests. They felt that Richards would be a first-class mortgagor and a first-class business man. The Crown valuation was £5425. Mr Preston submitted taxation figures to substantiate the request f°r the sale. Last year just under 20,000 lbs of butter-fat were taken when only 100 cows were milked. It was quite clear that the returns could be increased, and Richards could easily get 5000 lbs more fat off the place than last year. There were two gullies and a swamp which detracted from the value, especially as a sub-division proposition. Mr Preston asked that the purchase price be amended to re ad £6OOO for the land and £1750 for the stock and chattels, a total of £7750. Mr Malone ojjfeented, and the Committee granted.®>e amendment. F. J. Bertram, land agent and valuer.’ stated that he valued the property at £37 per acre. On a cowcarrying capacity it was worth £55 per ’acre. While the land was not suitable for sub-division it would not be impossible to do so. The stock and chattels!were in most cases under valued. The herd was of a very good type. There was more equip; ment on the farm than on any he had seen for many a long day. At the amended figures there would' be buyers waiting for the farm. It would carry 120 cows comfortably with replacements. To Mr Rowe, witness said he had valued the stock on a low basis because some of the cows were not in i calf and there had been some mam- | mitis trouble in the herd. The dwellI ing and other buildings were of a ■ good class. Mr Rowe at this stage protested against the lack of a budget, stating that the baalnce-sheet handed in was not in accordance with the Land Sales Act. A discussion took place between Mr Rowe. Mr Preston, and the .Committee on this point, Mr Rowe stating I that he would oppose the application on the ground of aggregation and.- on the ground that the property WRs suitable for returned soldiers. ®e asked for an adjournment untiwa budget was produced. ! Mr Preston wished the Crown representative would be more practical and not raise irritating questions. Mr Rowe asked the Committee if it would be prepared fo adjudicate on the case with the figures before it. The chairman said the Committee was forced to do so.

The examination of Mr Bertram by Mr Rowe then continued. Mr Bertram said the place would carry 120 cows, and they should produce 250 lbs fat. Twenty per cent cull cows could be taken off the place yearly, and 80 bobby calves could be sent away. He allowed for three deaths per year out of 120 cows; £5 would be his allowance for the potter bull; £7 per week for management, with travelling expenses at £25 a year, would be a failallowance. Other items were two men as well as the owner at £3 12s 6d each, bull £2O, boar £5. Two and a half cwt. of manure, with three cwt. of lime to the acre; carriage costs would be 10s per ton, and sundry costs £lO per year. Power for milking was estimated at £25 per year, and repairs and maintenance costs were set down at £BO per year. In reply to Mr Preston witness detailed the buildings on the farm. The property was suitable for share-milk-ing, and had a locality value. T. H. Richards, the purchaser, said he owned 98 acres just over the road from Bell’s farm. The latter was similar to his own. He carried 73 cows on his property, with 20,600 lb fat on a six years’ average. He could carry 120 cows on the property before the Committee without replacement of stock. He would work it in conjunction with his present farm, and could get 25,000 lb fat with the methods he would use. A near-by farm was sold over twelve months ago at £5O per acre. To Mr Rowe, witness said he owned a 200-acve farm about two miles away and a 68-acre hill plantation. He wanted to get his two sons landminded, and when they grew up place them on the farms. He had no objection to the farm being taken by a

returned soldier. His principle was to get land near his own. Mr Malone said it was a matter of public interest, and the personal factor counted considerably in this case. It was in the best interests of the country to see that farms were farmed to the best advantage. For the Crown Mr McGlone valued the property as a freehold unit at £5424 and the stock and chattels at £2124. The pasture was not up to the highest standard; there were 36 acres that, wbuld not be available for grazing; the.re were 416 chains of fencing which he classed as poor; there were 16 water services where one electric pump could do the whole job. Witness classed 126 acres as medium pasture, 24 acres poor pasture, 14 acres unimproved, 8 acres in fallow, and 2 acres in crops. In the course of cross-examination by Mr Preston witness agreed t the property was not suitable for division for the use of two soldiers. The cost of buildings and the matter of flooding affected the question of sub-division. Mr Rowe submitted that if the property was purchased for a returned man a suitable experienced man would be placed on it. His point about aggregation still stood whether the farm went to a soldier or not. Mr Preston contended that the Committee’s main duty was to see that values were not unduly inflated. Regarding the question of soldier settlement the vendors and the purchaser were quite neutral, but practical experience was against it. He never knew of a ease where the Crown advanced money to the extent of the capital involved, as in this case. The Committee reserved its decision. It is understood that the Committee has declined to give its consent to the above transaction on the ground of undue aggregation.