ASSESSMENT COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CI, Issue 15502, 12 November 1914, Page 5

ASSESSMENT COURT.

- I SITTING IN TIMARU. VALUATIONS UPHELD. A sitting of the Assessment Court- was held m Tiiuaiu yes«ertiay. Mr V. G f->ay, s.Ji., ;jiu was accompanied on the buucu by Messrs 'or. Lyaa (ot. Anarews), and a. LI. i'ringie (.xunaru,). i ine Vaiuaiion Department, was- represented by Messrs D. Stowed and H. L. Wiggins. I Jrieaiy W. Aker,' Claremont, objected to ins farm being valued at £2O per I acie. In support uf his objectrion iie stated that tlie farm adjoining his wa:t valued at- £lB, while a farm one and a hair nnles nearer to Timaru than his was valued at £lB 10s. There was no difference m the character of the land, To Mr Stowell: His place had been on the market for several years at £22. He considered £2O was an unfair valuation. It was the rule to ask more than one expected to get. The appellant strongly denounced the system which made him pay for his improvements. He had worked the land to the best of his ability and as a consequence it was thought to be a. better :arm than these adjoining and he had to pay more in rates. The valuer compared appellant's farm [vith others in the neighbourhood and said it would he unfair to them if hip ivas reduced. He considered the valuation of £2O ;r, fair one. The Bench after consideration sustained the valuation. . Gerald Casey, farmer. Claremont, said h© considered the valuation on his farm excessive, and lie asked that it be reduced from £lB t- £ls per acre. He' considered £lB a,n outrageous valuation. He also complained that his valuation had been increased out of all proportion in comparison with_ his neighbours; and ho entered into a history cf his own and his neighbour's farm, which lie said- had both been taken up over nineteen years ago. His unimproved value had been increased, in five years, 58 per cent, as compared with his neighbour's 28; V per cent. That was a wonderful increase in five years. The fact that his land was specially adapted for wheat growing, should reduce its value. It had been proved conclusively by the reduction in the area of land sown in wheat in New Zealand, that the growing of it was not profitable. It was now found that wheat could not he. produced except at a loss, and he could therefore only fall ba,ck on sheep. He quoted figures to show that With sheep on his 194 acres of land he would have to pay 22s Id re_nt, and would be unable to providefor his family on that basis when the wheat growing ceased, and under the present valuation he emphatically declrred that it would be impossible for him to make a living out of the farm. He did not expect the valuer to increase his valuation because lie had worked the land in a -workmanlike manner. He was proceeding to quote from a speech of Mr Massey's on the matter of taxation, but the Magistrate refused to allow him t 0 proceed stating that this could not be ■ allowed as evidence. Mr Casev, continuing, asked that his uninroroved valuation be reduced to £2500, with improvements -6410, making the capital va.lue £2910: If, thev cou r d not see their way to dp this he asked the Court to put his unimproved valuation on the same footing as his neighbour's, namely. £2659.. n To Mr Stowell: T&e reason the land opposite him had risen ,so high in valuation was that it had frllen into the I'.a.nds of"-speculators. There had been nine changes in ownership since he took up his farm at Claremont and that number included a tailor, a butcher, and some speculators. A speculator, 1 said Mr C'asey, never objected to a high valuation. Asked Why none of the ether land owners appealed, Mr Casey said the people as a rule were most diffident in appearing before the Court; ihey recognised that they got nothing out of it and had lost confidence in the Court. The lowest value lie declared of his land was £ls per acre. Mr Stowell afterwards went into the oox, and_ in reply to questions by Mr Casey said that lie arrived at the valuation by inspection. In his opinion Mr Casey's "was a better' farm thr n Mr Fowlers, his neighbour. There was no comparison between the land mentioned at Pareora and Mr Casey's;- it was different land altogether. Mr Casey pointed out that if his unimproved vcluo. were set at £3030 as proposed, it would mean an increase o? from £7OO to £BOO on his previous valuation. Th© Court wero of the opinion that £lB per acre was a fair valuation, and the valuer's assesa^iont..These were the only objections.