MANGAPIKO ASSESSMENT COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1355, 8 March 1881, Page 2

MANGAPIKO ASSESSMENT COURT.

The Assessment Court for the Mangapiko Highway District was held on Monday, February 28th, before H. W. Northcroft Esq., R.M., Assessment Judge, at 2 p.m. The' first objector called upon was Mr Stephen Westney. Mr Ligertwo,od,, who represented the Valuers, stated 5 that' the Board had not received a copy of this objection as required by the Eating Act. The Court having examined the postmarks on the envelope,' declared the objection informal; and it was struck off; ' JDlie next objection was that of Mr John Goodfellow, who stated that he objected to a valuation of Its per acre as the rateable value, and that the ground of his objection was that his farm wag not worth it in the market. He considered the valuation excessive. »> As evidence he called— Mr S. Wesfcaey, who

stated, as Kls-opwi<W'/ihat the valuation was excessive. —Mr Bosanko, Mr Jones, -ami Mr Foster, gave similar evidence. Mr Ligertwood in supporting the valuation, stated for the information of the Court, that, owing to the persistent and hitherto successful appeals of Messrs Goodfellow against former valuations made by paid valuers, and in deference to the opinion^an,d wish, of r majority of 'ratepayers, 1 * the \Btom /h*F'%m>ointed themselves valuers, uudeV the idea that they could more- Bttceeaafattytyemßfr- *»«-_ neals than one, mid valuer single-handed, . tmey had inide the/present sv#lij».tion so far as they 'could an equitable one. r The Court, -beings, doubtful as.,-lcufche_ legality of the jß^wl,,ap#pjntihig themselves valuers, gave it as nis opinion that whilst the.Aot may not forbid the, Bqard| i so acting, it was gtr^chiag it at any] rate. , „ , . v t . - ,r, r The Clerk to,the,Boa,rd having deposed to the correctness of thfe* Minute Book, showed Iherefrota the election^ •'of 1 the Board to the appointment of the valuers. Mr LigertwdodOcitietiiasJetidsnc&sih support of the y*iluaiaon f Oapt. Steele, who being sworn,, seated i^iat he, was -a land agent and valuer, of considerable experience, had v.cry unwillingly come up at thB request of the Board, to give an oPinion upon the value of several farms in the district. Had, been over tho. farm of Messrs Goodfellow.' " In his opinion the farm was, if not the 'finest, one of the! "> finest in the Waikato-,, r .The soil was excellent, the farm waain fair order, there . vraa a Railway Station' on the property, and a thriving township at the b^ok of it, he could npt see what more a ina'n', could ' want. He thought thd valuation a very fair one, If he had not just hoard the proprietor himself running it down on every side, he should have said £15 per acre was a fair value, but supposed the'owrier must know best, and therefore thought £12 or £1 3 a fair .price. ,If ttie ow.net Sifter, thes Court rose, would sta.nd, to what he had ; * just stated, he, (Capt. Steele)",' would take him up, and would engage to find «,pur-~ chaser or tenant wi^hyij^ree months. In answer to questions from, Mr Goodfellow, ,Capt. Steele replied th&t he was not much of a farmer himself,^ejtherdid-heypretend to know better than residents the value of land, bufc still he had an opinion of his own, and he had stated it, whatever it might be worth. ' ''"',? Mr Maokey, being called, said he knew the farm well, and thought the valuation a fair one. . „ - , i / Questioned by Mr Goodfellow: there was a time when he thought P;|Mrangi laad equally good. Did not think so now j thought there wa3 fully a difference of £5 per acre. ' Whether he made farming pay or not he had to live by his farm, did not think it was anybody's business whether he had any other income wherewith to eke out the profit's of farmingl' Mr Higgiuaon, stated his opinion that the valuation was a fair one. ' Mr Groodfellow having replied, The Court said that according to the evidence, the valuation would be sustained. ' The next objection was of Mr Bosanko. The valuers stated their willingness to allow a reduction of £1 per acre"' which was accepted. The objection of Mr Jones was also allowed and a reduction of £1 per acre given and accepted. The objection of Mr Seccombe being called, Mr Seccombe said that he objected not so much that he was too high, as that he v, r as higher than his neighbour, his farm of 450 acres being valued 'at £202 10s Oil, his neighbour of 710 acres being valued at £216 0a Od a difference of £13 10s Od for the extra 270 acres. The valuers having shown to the Court that the apparant inequality arose through a very large excess of very inferior laud in the larger property the valuation was sustained. The objection of Mr Reyburn was heard and a reduction made of Is per acre. The objection of Mr Jtrippner. was also allowed the valuers agreeing a reduction of Is 6d per acre. The rest of the objections were thrown out as informal. The question of costs having been brought up it was agreed to allow none on either side. The alterations having been made in the valuation roll anil signed by the Assessment Judge, the Court rose. — Correspondent.