ASSESSMENT COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 274, 4 March 1879, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Monday. March 3

(Before Justin Aylmer, Esq,, Judge.)

This Court sat on the above date to hear objections against the valuation roll for the Borough of Akaroa. Mr M'Gregor appeared to support the valuation roll, and Mr Barry, Town Clerk, was in attendance on behalf of the Borough Council.

The following objections were heard and disposed of as stated :— J. D. Garwood appeared to object to the valuation of a small paddock in Benoit street, for which he was rated at £7 10s.' Reduced to £5.

Mr Garwood also objected to the valuation of his store, Beach road, which was set down at £160. He contended that property had depreciated 20 per cent since last year, when"he had been rated at £150. Mr M'Gregor would consent to a reduction to £150.

Mr Garwood was not satisfied with this.

Reduced to £140.

The sajne gentleman also objected to the yaW placed upon his residence in Jollie street, viz., £50.

Mr M'Gregor admitted that he had included some garden ground in his valuation which did not belong to the property.

Reduced to £41 12s.

There was another case in which Mr Garwood was concerned, the Council objecting to the valuation of the corner house opposite the wharf at £40 as too low.

Before this case was proceeded with, Mr M'Gregor took a preliminary, objection to Mr Barry appearing at all to object to the roll. He contended that accordiug to section 14 of the Rating Act, 1875,' it was necessary that anyone objecting on behalf of the Council should be " appointed by them in writing for that purpose." It was not shown that the Clerk was so appointed.

The words of the section are as follows: —" The local body may, by their chairman or clerk, or other officer appointed by them in writing for that purpose, object to any particular valuation, &c." Mr Barry maintained that the words " appointed by them in writing"' applied only to any "other officer," and not to the chairman or clerk.

The judge would hear the case now, as Mi Garwood wanted to get away, and reserve the point. ■ Evidence having been taken in the case of Mr Garwood, the value in the roll was sustained.

Mr W. Barnett had put in an objection to the valuation of the old Oddfellows' Hall, but it was informal, no notice had been given to the Borough, and the objector was. not present. The objection, therefore, was not entertained.

J. F. Roberts—Two objections by this gentleman were struck out for the same reasons as those in the last case.

G.; Armstrong—Rated at £50 Bs. Reduced to £45, the same amount at which he was rated last year.

In another case the name of John Nixon was inserted in place of Mr Armstrong's, the former being a yearly tenant. Rev. P. C. Anderson objected to being rated for the Parsonage, and grounds attached thereto, for the reason that it was church property; and that he paid no rent. Mr M'Gregor contended that the property did not come under the exemption in sec. 37, which referred only to "lands occupied by churches and chapels." The Court decided that the property was liable to be rated, hut reduced the valuation from £75 to £50.

H. H." Fenton objected to the valuation of the property of which he was in occupation, known as Beach House, which was valued at £30, wheieas he was only paying £20. Reduced to £20.

A. Nicholls objected to being rated for the schoolmaster's, residence, Balguerie street, on the ground that it belonged to the Board of Education, and that he paid no rent.

The Court reserved the points raised by Mr Nicholls.

John O'Brion and his co-trustees objected to the Oddfellowe' Tlall being- rated at £80 a year on the grounds—lst, that the building was unfinished ; and 2nd, that even if finished, the value was excessive.

Reduced to £64.

P. O'Reilly objected to being assessed in respect of section 110, on the ground that he was not the owner ■or occupier of the same.

Mr M'Gregor. said this was one of those phantom Beckons which threatened to elude their grasp.

There being no satisfactory evidence of the ownership of the section, Mr O'Reilly's name was struck out, and " the owner " was substituted as provided in section 11 of the Rating Act, 1876.

The Council objected to the valuation of P. O'Reilly's forge and stables as being insufficient. The value was sot down at £25, whereas Mr Barry maintained that there was no reason why it should have been reduced from the valuation of last year, which was £30.

Valuation sustained.

John Beecher objected to the valuation of Bruce's Hotel, viz., £200. Mr Beecher stated that he was only paying £180 rent, and that if he had to take it now, he would not give more than £150 for it.V Reduced to £144, viz., the' actual rent less 20 per cent.

Samuel Fyfe, rated at £12 lOs for four sections, objected to the valuation on the ground that ho could not get £2 per annum for the property. Reduced to £8. -~. The same objected "to another property which ho rented from the Rev. W. Aylmer, viz., 7 acres ,within\the town boundary, valued at £15.' — ' . : : Reduced to £6 6s. • '

: W. Johnson objected to the valuation of the Criterion Hotel, which was set down aV£24Q./ \- ■-' • Mr-M'Gregor.-elicited that the actual rent paid was'£3oo a 1 year, and appealed to the Court to carry out the principle acted on in other cases, and take the actual rental, leas 20 per cent, as the rateable value. Valuation sustained. OBJECTIONS BY BOROUGH COUNCIL ' The Borough Council objected to the valuation on the residence of 0. W. Bridge, which was Bet down at £50. _Mr M'Gregor stated that from information received he was aware that £50 was the rent actually paid by Mr Bridge. Valuation sustained. J. L. Manning, £17 10s. Mr Barry contended that J. L. Manning only paid rent for three rooms, and that one, the largest room in the house, was reserved for the proprietrix. The property should he rated at its value as a whole. Valuation sustained. •A. Rodrigues. In this case the valuation was raised from £75 to £80. A. G. Wiggins, Mail Office, £25. No objection was offered, and this name, which had been omitted, was inserted. Same, house in Jollie street. In this case the Trustees of the late Mr Hemmingway were ordered to be inserted at £21. H. Billens, £32. Last year this property had been rated at £35. Mr Billens stated that he was rated at a greater value than last year, the valuer had taken £3 off the shop and put £5 on some property at the back. Valuation sustained. Section 161, Dramanderitz., This name was struck out and " the owner " substituted.

The Court decided against Mr M'Gregor's objection to the appearance of the . Town Clerk without special appointment in writing.

The Court then adjourned