LEVELS COUNTY VALUATIONS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13900, 11 May 1909, Page 2

LEVELS COUNTY VALUATIONS.

THE ASSESSMENT COURT. A sitting of the Assessment Courtwas uclu iii iiiuuru jtoiiiuaj- moiuiuij ior Lno puipoae oi unci Ucilioojecuulis to mo valuations lcceuiij mauc in ijcveis urnuiy. Air \ . ka. j->j.v, 0.jj.., pitbiueu, ana assuciat«u wuu' iinu wc-re .ue&oi's u. otuait ><uu u. ljyuii, ..-i&Si.ssurs. Messrs xJ. and F. totowell were present. us> uistiict valuers t-j buataiu i.uvir vmua Lions, and ivu - A. rej/ii;stnteu liic \ aiuauon Ue|jarkiu«.iit. Jiost or tlioso wno liau luugeu objections had been aole V: come to a settlement witn the valuers, wituout- iuierveniiou or the Court, but there'were a tew cases to come oeiore tae Court.

j. 1/aviusoii, iarnier, or Pareora, objected to the valuations put upon his tui'ee holdings—lUu acres at a<i9 per acre, 4i acivs at £lt) odd per acre, anu 104 acres at £l6 odd pe£ acre. I'lie objector said Jie considered that Jjio per acre all round, would bo a lair valuation; that was all that could be got out of the land. In the lyOacre oioek there were lo acres unploughable and about 5 acres of swamp and these parts were, not worth more than £lO per acre. 'lue land of Mr Crombie, a lew chains turther on, was only valued at £l4 and his was no better than that.

To Mr Clothier: The land would grow about 30 bushels or wheat per acre, ihough one year he. had got only \'l bushels from it. Until 12 months ago he had held the 104 acre block, on lease, paying 13s an acre for it. >\vhen he bought it he gave £lB 10s an acre tor it. His" reason for buying was that thi3 block suited him, as it worked in nicely with the original holding, and without it he had not sufficient land to keep a man and a team going all the year round.

The Magistrate suggested that it was not a very good business transaction to give £3 10s an acre more for land than it was worth -simply to "keep a man' arid team in '• employment. The objector had given £lB. lUs per acre, yet said the land was worth only £ls per acre. Donald Munro, called by Mr Davidson, said that the 104 acre block was not worth more than £ls, and for the other two blocks, £l4 would be a fair valuation. Portions of the' land were sour, and broken. It would carry 1A sheep to the acre. To Mr Clothier: To fix the wheat yielding' capacity of the land at 30 bushels per acre was to over-estimate ts value; 25 bushels would be high enough. The land was eight miles from Timaru.

To the Magistrate: To cover the cost of growing, harvesting, and threshing a crop, about £2 15s per acre should be set down.

The Magistrate: A'ery well, a 30 bushel crop at 4s would give a return of £6 per acre, and deducting £2 15s for expenses would leave a profit of 65s per acre, or equal to a return of 5 per cent, on land bought at the rate of £65 per acre. The witness and Mr Davidson ventured to point out that was not how things worked out in i-racticc. They did not always get 4s per bushel, nor could they crop their land every year. The Magistrate said that supposing it only returned £1 per acre profit, that would make it worth . £2o_ per acre basing the calculation on a 5 per cent, basis.

Mr D. Stowell gave evidence in support of the values he had put upon the land. He said' that it could not be compared with Mr Crombie's land which was much lighter, and was valued at £l4 per acre; and he reminded the Court that the Canterbury Frozen Meat Company had sold land close to Mr Davidson's, in one acre blocks at £4O per acr<; —laud of the same quality, while for other land in the same locality and of similar quality 25s per acre rent was being paid. The Court decided to uphold the valuations.

. T. Sands, of Pareora, objected to the valuation of £576 put upon his 36 acres adjoining the creamery. He said the land was light, shingly, and subject to flood ; the last flood had taken away about three acres of surface soil. Mr Clothier said the previous valuation was £3O0 —£252 for the land, and £4B for improvements —but that was too low.

In reply to the Magistrate, the objector said he valued the land at £7 per acre unimproved, and the improvements at £350.

The Magistrate pointed out that this would bring the total up to £602 while the Government valuer had only put him down at £576.

To Air Clothier the objector admitted that he had recently bought land «>f the Fame quality adjoining his holding at £l2 per acre. The valuation was upheld. H. Simmons, of Beaconsfield, was next called, but Mr Clothier said that an agreement had been arrived at sinee the Court had opened for the valuations in the case of this objector to stand as follows:—£237;~> capital value -—£1775 unimproved value, and £6OO for improvements.

D. Mtinrn, of I'arcora. was the only other objector to appear before "the Court. He objected to his farm of a little under 200 acres being valued at 1.16 10s,- he would be cuutciit.-lo see

it remain as before, at £l4 per acre.

To Mr Clothier: He had let the farm with the exception of two acres and the house, at 17s per acre, and the man j who had it. informed him that the crop this year yielded only 25 bushels per acre. To the Magistrate: Witness tried to get ISs per aero when letting the land, but accepted 17s. The Magistrate- said that if in the opinion of the objector, the land was worth 18s per acre rent, and 17s had been paid for it, it must be worth £l6 10s per acre capital value. Mr Lvnll said he had heard that a portion of the land had been re-let at a considerably higher rental than the obiector let it for. The valuation was sustained. The following other objectors were called on, but did not appear as their respective objections had been settled bv compromises:— Elizabeth A. Day, J. Balfour, G. Robinson, J. Burke, G. Casey, J. Gibson, Ellen Housten. A. K. Kerr, A. Cleland, J. Maze, "Alex. Scott. R. Robertson, F. Savage, R. Parry, G. Talbot, G. Gabites, and J. J'ooke. Thp ;U:i"istr-ife signed the valuation roll, and the Court rose. ■ ■