BOARD OF REVIEWERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2368, 11 June 1892, Page 2

BOARD OF REVIEWERS.

1 The sitting of the Board of of the Geraldine County under the Land and Income Assessment Act was commenced at the Courthouse, Timaru, on Thursday morning, the board being : Messrs E. C. Stericker (chairman), F. R. Fjatmau, and S. 11. Digkjiqu. tylr y\ T . Q, Walker, Inspecting Assessor, was present to assist Mr Allan, the assesspr for the district, and Mr T. How|ey acted as clerk to t|ie ppprt. Timothy Brosnahan objected to the assessment of 124 f acres at £2IOB, including improvements, £124.-—Unim-proved value reduced by £OOB, to £1370, The valuation of £8 2s 6d per acre for 01 acres on the main road between Washdyke and Temuka was sustained. Alexander Humphrey objected to the valuation of his farm on the Opihi as cxuussivp. Of png pprtjon, 0021 acres,Y valued at £7 12s Gd net, 86 were spbjeqt to floods, and was light, sandy land.Valuation of 80 apres of flooded Jand reduced to £3l2s 6d per acre net, A second lot of Ipfli acres was valued at £l4 gross, and this was sustained,

H. Oldfield, 158 i acres in the angle ofthe Opihi river and the sea, valuation £l3, objected that the total came to £54 more than he paid for the land twelve months ago. There were 46 acres of it in two large gullies, swamped by high seas and nnploughablo.—The valuation of 46 acres was reduced £4 an acre. Later in the day the valuation was further reduced £IOO.

T. Howley, 39 acres on the downs fronting Washdyke road, valuation £ls per acre, objected that this was too high, £l3 was his own valuation. The land certainly fronted on the main road but it was inacessible from that road except by a ladder. The Assessor stated when he first spoke to him Mr Howley valued it at £25 an acre, but dropped and dropped to £lO, so witness put it at £ls. Mr Howley: I thought you were a foolish buyer. (Laughter) Valuation sustained.

Michael Loney, 44f acres, Level Plains, £350, improvements, £IOB, land only, £242. —Reduced to £312 total, and improvements to £9O. The objector said he was satisfied. The other objections heard on Thursday had no connection with this district.

Yesterday the following business was taken: — Gillingham Brothers, Failie Riding, 8467 acres, total value £16,468, improvements £4790, unimproved value £11,678. Mr D. H. Gillingham appeared to object to the valuation all round as too high. Valuation sustained. F. LeOren, 2406 acres, Ashwick Flat, total valuation £6529, improvements £2920, unimproved value £3609. The objector said he was assessed at 30s an acre and the Government were selling land over the fence on deferred payment at 20s an acre. —Valuation sustained. The N.M. & A. Co. (per Mr McLaren) objected to be enrolled as owners of 137 a cres, of which they were only mortgagees. —Left to the Department to change the name. Bank of New Zealand Estates Company, Albury Estate, 13,621 acres, total value £61,296, improvements £14,600, unimproved value £46,696, annual letting £3678. After Mr Marchant,the assessor, had given evidence in support of his valuation, Mr A. M. Clark, sworn, said he valued the improvements at nearly £24,000. There were 200 acres of plantation set down at £lO, when it should be £2O an acre. The buildings were insured for £3OOO, and assessed for only £2000; that should he increased by a third. There were 125 miles of fencing, worth £SO per mile instead of £4O. There were 8600 acres in grass, worth £1 an acre, and only £6OOO were allowed. Last year they broke up 1600 acres, and put it in turnips. Mr Walker objected to turnips being called an inprovement, and Mr Clark contended they were if “unexhausted” at the time of valuation. Mr Clark then objected to Mr Walker appearing and asked the Board to show him in the Act the authority for Mr Walker’s presence. Mr Walker said he was appointed by the Commissioner, and ultimately turned to clause 44 of the Act, which provided that the Oommsssioner, Deputy-Commissioner, or their solicitor, or the Assessor or other officer may appear in support of the assessment. Mr Walker said his duty was to protect the general interest of the people and see that no person or institution got off unfairly at the expense of the rest of the community. Mr Clark could not see how two persons could appear. The regulation said the assessor “ or,” not “ and,” other officer. He objected to two persons appearing. The chairman said the boartj were perfectly satisfied with Mr Walker s authority to appear, as he had appeared in Christchurch and no objection was made. Mr Clark contended that had nothing to do with it, and ultimately, gave in the following protest in writing, which the chairman said would be sent to Wellington “ I hereby object, and request the board to take note of the same : that Mr W. C. Walker, not being a solicitor or Assessor, has no status, and his position in this Court is consequently illegal, and his interference in this case is contrary to law and probably has already biassed my case. A. M. Clark.” Evidence in support of Mr Clark’s contention of over valuation was then iaken, and tip bqarcl qphqlcl'ttys atjsestjiqffnt.