ASSESSMENT COURT

Waikato Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5341, 23 June 1913, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT

A sitting of the Assessment Court was held in the Courthouse, Hamilton, this morning, before Mr E. Rawson, S.M., and Messrs Mandeno and J. C. Potts.

H. Saulbrey, Ngaruawahia, objected to the valuation of his property, which had been increased from £3610 to £6635, owing, he claimed, to the land round him having been speculated with. He did not object to the assessment on the improvements, but the total which he would have to pay would not allow a living being made. He had been on his farm for thirty years. The land adjoining was for sale at £l2. Cross-examined by Mr Hyde, he said his place was not in any agent’s hands for sale at £3l per acre. James Russell Helherington, land agent at Ngaruawahia, said that he had had Mr Saulbrey's properties in his land books for sale, on several occasions from £22 upward, but he had never had any signature from him.

Mr Hyde, giving evidence, said that Mr Saulhrey’s property contained very valuable river flats, for which he had refused over £4O an acre. There was absolutely no comparison between the values of this property and the one adjoining. The valuation was sustained. J. A. Beach, of Hamilton, appeared on behalf of Ids wife, and stated that the 200 acres she was assessed for were not hers, and 95 acres were not charged to her. Another block of 200 acres which he had been assessed for was not his. With regard to another 330 acres, he did not object to the total capital value, hut the value of his improvements which the Department had assessed too low by £SOO. This £SOO was represented by 2J years work.—On the suggestion of Mr Hyde, the assessment was left over until the property had been looked over by Mr J. C. Potts, himself, and Mr Beach.

Several objections were put in by Ngaruawahia residents, but most of them were arranged before the Court gat.

W. R. Booth objected to the low value of his improvements, which were put down at £9OO. He complained that no allowance had been made for clearing gorse, which he valued at £5 an acre.—The valuer, Mr G. Hyde, pointed out that it was improving the original land and not imported weeds that improvements are valued on. Mr Booth owned that when Mr Hyde was round he told him he would leave the valuation to him. Mr Rawson pointed out that Mr Booth was in error there. It was absurd to object now, as the true time to go into details on the valuation was when the valuer was round. Mr Hyde pointed out that the big discrepancies between his valuation and Mr Booth’s lay in the £5 an acre for stumping and clearing, and not knowing the original stale of the property he could give no information. There was also a big difference in the value of the house, for which Mr Booth had allowed no depreciation. Another objection raised by Mr Booth was on the unimproved value, which to his mind was live times too large. His farm was only worth £3O an acre to him, but he would take £4O an acre if it was offered. He considered his farm the best in the district.

The valuation was finally readjust ed as follows:—Capital value £2515 unimproved value £ll4O, .improve rnents £1375.

The court was adjourned to allow of other objections being discussed, and this was proceeding when we went to press.