ASSESSMENT COURT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18235, 20 November 1924, Page 7

ASSESSMENT COURT.

VALUATIONS OBJECTED TO A sitting of the Assessment Court commenced in Christchurch yesterday to hear objections respecting the revised valuation roll for the Cashmere riding of the Heatheote County. The president, Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., presided, and with him on the Bench were Messrs Arthur Smith and W. Cunningham, assessors for the Heatheote County Council and Government Valu : ation. Department respectively. Mr H. L. Wiggins, officer in charge of the Valuation Department, represented that Department, and Mr D. H. Pullar, District Valuer, Christchurch, was . also present. ' The Court sat at. 10.30 a.m., but, owing to the president being unable to attend at that hour because of the Mararoa, in which he was- travelling from Wellington to Lyttelton, being weather-bound, the proceedings were adjourned until the afternoon:

Mr A. F. Wright, who appeared for a number of objectors in the Cashmere district, said that no fewer than four valuations had been made of the properties during the last four years, in consequence of which it was desired to protest against the practice. The objectors had felt the revaluations very much indeed. They were market gardeners in a small way. ■Clarence Allen Boskell objected to the valuation of £l2O per acre put on his property at Cashmere, the area of which is 6 acres 1 rood 23 perches. Boskell said the place was taken over by him in 1921. He assessed the value of it at £625 unimproved valuation, equal to £IOO an acre. He.had put a shed on the land. The property was unsuitable .. for subdivision. It was hilly land with a frontage of five chains and a depth of 12 chains. In winter water ran downhill over the property. To Mr Pullar: Witness gave an acre for the land.

Mr Smith: You paid £l6O an acre for the land in its virgin state four years ago, and now you object to a valuation of £l2O an acre.

Charles John Findlay objected to the valuation on his property at Eowan Vale avenue, consisting of 8 acres and 1 perch, the Government valuation being £l2O an acre.

Giving evidence, the objector, stated that he paid £1250 in a lump sum for the property. Three years ago the land was valued at £6OO, later at £BOO, and lastly at £IOSO. He considered that a fair valuation would be from £9O to £IOO per acre. He objected to con, r tinuous valuations being made. The president said the number of valuations made did not matter. What the Court had to decide was whether the properties would, if put up at auction, realise those valuations. Samuel Sincock said that he paid £l6O per acre for his property, and- considered that to-day it was worth £IOO an acre. There were 9 acres 3 roods and 37 perches in the property owned by himself and wife. The valuations were all sustained. Objection was made to the valuation of the Cashmere Estate. The Government valuation was as follows:—Land £47,800, improvements £9050, total £56,850. The area of the estate is 2019 acres 3 roods 20 perches. ' Mr Wright objected to the lumping together of various parts of the estate. It was not a fair way, he contended, to value land in such a manner. Because of the refusal of the Department to supply details of the valuation, the trus-

'ces had been put to considerable ex pense to get out a plan themselves. George Slater, licensed surveyor, pro duced a plan of the Cashmere Estate The area covered in the plan was 1952 acres. . None of the land on the property could be subdivided without expenditure on works to make it suitable for such a purpose. Alfred Freeman, valuer, gave, evidence regarding the survey of the estate, the proceedings being subsequently adjourned until 11 a.m. to-day, in order to allow the president and assessors to make an inspection of the estate.