ASSESSMENT COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume V, Issue 221, 17 June 1913, Page 3

ASSESSMENT COURT.

A sitting of the Assessment Court was held in the court house, Te Awamutu, on Friday last to hear objections to recent valuations in the Leamington and Mangapiko Ridings, Rangiaohia Road District, and Te Awamutu Town District. The objections were heard before Mr E, Rawson S.M., and Messrs C. Potts, W. H. Mandeno, J. Ollard, J. Veale assessors. Mr Geo. Hyde (Government valuer) and Mr Fraser McKenzie (Auckland city valuer) appeared in support of the valuations. In the majority of cases,

the valuations in the Leamington and Mangapiko ridings, Rangiaohia and Pukekura road districts were sustained. Te Awamutu Town District.

Mr J. L. Mandeno objected to paying rates on Town Board leasehold. Mr Hyde was of opinion that the lessor was liable for the rates. However, he would be glad to adjust the assessment if such was found not to be the case.

D. Christian objected to his assessment as he considered the unimproved value too high as compared with adjoining properties. The price paid by Mr Ahier (£315) for his section, he contended, would not fetch the price if sold at the present time. Capital value reduced by £lO5. G. H. White appeared on behalf of Mr Donaldson (Waihi) to object to the assessment of £1846. He stated the property had been sold by him for £I6OO only a short time ago to Mr Donaldson. The valuation was sustained. G. H. White also objected to valuation of section 42, £1855. The unimproved value he considered too high. He gave £BOO for the property, and house had cost him £SOO to build. Valuation sustained. Objection was also lodged by Mr White to valuation of section 57. £2BO. The sections opposite were sold for £IOO. The objector contended that it was impossible to sell the section by itself, and that the outlook on to the saleyards was not the best. Valuation sustained. Mr H. Fear objected to his valuation of £390. The section was very low, and would require some filling. A property much nearer the centre ot the town had been sold for less than his valuation. Valuation reduced bv £4O. Mr Dwen also objected to the valuation of his property. He was of the opinion that as a freehold section it would not be worth the valuation put upon it. It was.pointed out by the valuer j (Mr Hyde) that the property opposite was sold recently at a J higher price than that at which IMr Dwen's was valued. Valuation sustained.