VALUATION APPEAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18620, 16 July 1930, Page 6

VALUATION APPEAL.

ACTION BY PUBLIC TRUSTEE. MAGISTRATE’S COURT PROCEEDINGS. Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.. was occupied in the Timaru Magistrate’s : Court yesterday in hearing an appeal by the Public Trustee, as executor of the estate of the late William Evans, against the Valuer-General, for a revaluation of a property situated at Winscombe. Mr L. E. Finch appeared for the Public Trustee, and Mr F. Stowell, district land valuer, defended the action. The appeal was made against the assessment of the Valuation Department for the purposes of death duties of a property known as “Lisava” farm, owned by the late William Evans, situated near Winscombe, a few miles south of Fairlie. The area of the farm is 1051 acres 2 roods 13 poles, and the tenure is freehold. The Government valuation at the death of deceased on March 3 last, was unimproved value £13,665; improvements £1,720; total £15.385. Mr Finch said that the revaluation made under application for death duty purposes on March 15 last was unimproved value £10,510, and improvements £2760, a total capital value of £13,270. The executor lodged an objection on April 29 to this valuation, estimating the values at unimproved value £B4OB, improvements £2750, a total value of £11,158, but after further consultation with the beneficiaries, the executor made an amended objection on April 16, as: unimproved value £6309, improvements £3OOO, a total capital value of £9309. On May 19 last, the Valuation Department wrote to the executor offering a reduction in the revaluation totalling £13,270, as follows: Unimproved value £8935, improvements £2760, total capital value of £11,695. The executor did not accept this reduction, and the re-valu-tion of £13,270, as at March 15, therefore, remained, and it was against this revaluation that the appeal had been brought. Mr Finch said that there was little dispute as to the value of the improvements—the executor estimated them at £3OOO and the Valuation Department at £2760. The main point of contention was the unimproved value; the Department estimated it at £10,510, say £lO an acre, and the case for the appellant would be that the unimproved value was from £4 to £5 an acre. The deceased had bought the farm in 1920 for £ls/9/2 an acre, the stock being bought for £3200. Since then a house and other improvements totalling about £I9OO had been put up. The farm had been managed by Mr W. T. Evans, a son of deceased, and full and proper books showing the working of the farm had been kept. The books showed a considerable loss over the whole period. Some years had been better than others, but the total loss over the period, if interest had been charged as 5 per cent, per annum on the land, at say, £ls/10/- an acre, would be £6925. If the value of the stock were taken in, and 5 per cent, per annum charged on that, the loss would be so much greater. Apart from the figures which showed the results of the working of the farm, evidence would be offered by experienced farmers acquainted with the district and the particular locality, that the total value of the farm was not more than £7 an acre capital value. The evidence generally of these valueis would be that the unimproved value was from £4 to £5 an acre. Edgar Cooper Wallace, accountant for William Evans and Co., said that the loss on the farm over nine years, charging interest on assets, was approximately £7BOO.

William Thornhill Evans, son of deceased, stated that possession was taken of the farm in September 1920, at the peak of the boom. The soil was not conducive to good production, and the contour of the farm, with creeks running full length of the place, often bank to bank, and unfordable in flood was unfavourable. The place was divided by ridges and back facings, and creeks running parallel with the roads, which made it very difficult to farm. It took two hours to get from the homestead to the furthest away part of the farm, a great part of which was often ice-bound in winter. Witness knew now that the place would have been best as a grazing place in the original tussock, the natural feed of the sheep; the wet sour ground once broken up would not grow suitable grass. Witness then traced the course of farming operations over the last nine years, stating that the ground was very unresponsive to manures and fertilising. From the first year’s diary it could be seen that 2447 bushels of wheat had been threshed. Since 1920 they had grown wheat, and had had a yield as high as 53 bushels an acre, and as low in one paddock as bushels an acre. It did not pay to grow wheat, the production costs exceeding the selling price. No matter how one cultivated and manured, the place went back into brown top very quickly. The turnip crops in spite of proper cultivation and manuring, did not warrant the cost of labour of sowing. Farm records, diaries, tallies, and other information necessary to make up complete balance sheets were always kept by witness, and handed to his father’s accountant, who made up books of account and yearly balance sheets.

To the Magistrate: He considered that nowadays no place was worth the Government valuation.

The Magistrate: “What would you sell for? What do you think the place is worth?”—£7,7oo. It would be worth that to a married man with a family.” To Mr Stowell: The wages bill for the farm Since 1921 was as follows: 1921, £746; 1922, £1963; 1923, £696; 1924, £640; 1925, £745; 1926, £907; 1927, £842; 1928, £670; 1929, £756.

Alexander Anderson, Timaru manager of the National Mortgage and Agency Co., gave evidence of Mr Evans’s farming ability, stating that his Lincoln College experience would have stood him in good stead. The average wages paid per year was £696 ss, which was not unduly high. The cost of fencing the swamp portion of the place would be prohibitive for cattle.

Evidence as to the poor quality of the land was given by John Waddell, retired farmer, who stated that the farm was not suited for wheat-grow-ing. There was no sign, in his opinion, of Mr Evans having been inefficient in working the land, and under the present valuation it would be impossible to make it pay. Witness considered the unimproved value to be £3 15s per acre, with improvements worth approximately £2500.

George Andrew Holmes, agricultural adviser and chemist for the National Mortgage Co., gave evidence of visiting the farm to advise Mr Evans as to the best fertilisers to increase the productivity of the ground. Generally, the soil was not of the best for topdressing. Probably the property would have been better left in its original tussock.

Thomas George Morris, retired farmer, Fairlie, gave similar evidence to that of Mr Waddell. His estimate of the value of the farm was £7 per acre, spread over a number of years, the unimproved value being £4 ss. James Peter Wilson, farm inspector for the Public Trust Office, gave evidence of having inspected the farm. In his opinion the land would be well sold at £7 per acre. A man growing

wheat on the farm would be on the straightest road to bankruptcy. Evidence of Mr Evans’s competency as a farmer was given by William Scott, farmer, of Fairlie, who stated that he had known the farm for six years. He described the conditions under which Mr Evans worked, along the lines of former evidence. William T. Evans, recalled, said that twelve months prior to his father’s death, the farm had been offered to the Government at £l4 an acre. This did not mean that the land was worth £l4 an acre, but was based on the Government valuation at £l6 per acre.

Frederick E. Duncan, District Public Trustee, stated that the property had been offered for sale by public auction but there had been no bid.

Mr Stowell said that the bone of contention seemed to be the amount of death duties against the estate. The Department did not take this into consideration, but based their valuations on the property over a term of years. They had had sales in the vicinity, and were of opinion that the present valuation was quite a fair one. He intended to call only one witness, although he could have called more. The Department did not desire much expense oh matters such as the present.

The Magistrate: “That’s penny wise and pound foolish. You stand a chance of losing revenue if the valuation is reduced.”

Mr Stowell: “We can’t help that.” Mr Stowell said that they contended also that the farm had not been farmed to best advantage. William John Dailey, a farmer, said he had known the farm for 40 years, since it was all in tussock. In its present state the farm was suited for mixed farming, but this of course would have to be rotational as far as wheat and oats were concerned. In his opinion the swamp country would in some cases be suitable for sheep if £3OO were spent in improving the creeks. The contract system would be the best way of working the farm.

To Mr Finch: Witness contended that the draining of the property was quite possible for £3OO, in spite of the opinions of other witnesses. The appellant’s witnesses were incorrect when they had stated that Mr Evans had managed the farm to the best possible advantage. At this stage the hearing was adjourned till 10 a.m. on Thursday.