LAND VALUATION OBJECTIONS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20107, 10 December 1930, Page 13

LAND VALUATION OBJECTIONS.

I bbt makes large ■ REDUCTIONS. £12,020 TAKEN off. cessment Court gave judgment ■ the three cases of objee- * North Canterbury runtios lodge . nst t k e Government valuaproperties, which were ""♦be excessively high. In each Substantial reductions were i ldg the valuation, the total reducssde 0 ; the three properties being f l2 ' o2o '- « a comparison of the new follows 13 . t. „id valuations. owned by George Ranald Joi, Lowry Peaks:—"Umm- ImproveCapital. proved, meats. £ £ £ 33 000 23,000 10,000 r,f V»!uatl00 •• 41 'n 5 5 51.,500 !>,753 Hon 30',840 10,'260 11,560 Property owned by Derrick William ift Cass:- - 50014, -J ll, Unim- ImprovoCapital. proved, merits. «I»V on " 14 230 9.710 4,5'i0 wU-w S>MO 5 > MO 5 ' 400 'jna> otrned by D'Arcy Carrington 1392 acres, near Mt. Cass: TJnim- ImproveCapil'd. proved. raenO- , n„n . 11,300 'MSS -I.Oir. f,*ulianon -• 13 ' 0g - ;, 27n .1,01 j H'.250 G. 250 5,000 Yesterday's Hearing. « I G L. Hewitt, S.M., presided Court and with him in the iirst '" tot of Mr George Ranald Mae- '?% „ ere Mr W. Cunningham, a,sCrown, and Mr W. it. iSn-MB. assessor for Cheviot County. and third cases, those ofc & fttritft William Gould and of Mr VAkt Camngtan Gardiner, 3tr L. A. wta&r£. assessor for Waipara St took Mr Wilkinson's place, v, li* E> Wanklyn appeared for all abators and Mr E. Eggleston .nresesmi th o Department. luteaxmgat Mr Macdonald's appeal on Monday and when the ■flirt jetted yesterday morning it was Z„gJ nt hearing evidence irom Mr jVgaiandv-, the valuer wlio made t n '~.-Mion Mr Gould's property. Vf s®Enfldvgave evidence regarding he «tes <£ properties adjoining Mr rf, mi tie probable return on hem ssiSs Tria cross-examined by Mr ITttUjm JH®irfing tis method or aririaj st Hi ipirof. Bssis of Valuations. He tali Mi' Wanklyn tha: he_ arrived ,f v,;. yitnifconj. not on a basis of rebasis of the selling talueaoi ssSar properties in the same listriet , A noghhonriag farmer who -was a frown teuai, said Mr Wanklyn, paid rent feet to the Crown. Why should Mi Gould, he 2sked, who paid rent mdirectly in tie form of land tax, have to pay mowl Did Mr Kennedy think it fait that this man should be assessed at tie rate of £4 5s a sheep, while Mr Gould was assessed at £9?— The witness was unable to answer. Mr Eggleston protested against such a comparison being made, saying that fAa rthttitß. at the Crown tenant's had wa* made by a different Departlent and lad nothing to do with this ne. Mr Sttiertord asked Mr Kennedy s ,mon for reducing the valuation on Mr Gould's property in 1929, and witness replied that it had been done by the Department as a part of the general Tendon of the values in the whole maty. To Mr Eggleston witness assited tlat there was nothing seriously rang with the valuations in the district Relativity of the Evidence. lathe opinion of the Magistrate witso tad failed to show any relation between the various places he had quoted and Mr Gould's. Witness had admitted, said his Worship, that he tew nothing about how many sheep uth carried or what improvements litre were on them. The only connexion between them was that they were in | tie same district. '■' HrEggleston: No one will deny that i: t&t plaees quoted are in the neighbouris loud of Mr Gould's. 'i Mr Wanklyn: We do admit that some .lie nearby and that some are a few j ®3ei away, but we do not admit that s % are similar in character or that fey-tre a fair basis for valuation, r At this point it was agreed, on the ! mjprtion of his Worship, that the two Wm, Mr Gould's and Mr Gardiner's, ■fonld be taken together. ®s Wotghip said that the Departamt had based its valuation on past ola and had not taken into account t Sweat ruling prices. The objectors their, valuations on present times od ruling prices. « Wanklyn: Mr Freeman, whom I ® ??hig to call again, goes a little ""flier still. He bases his valuation on returns. l(r Eggleston: He goes further than ™®--he bases it on what he thinks the Stum ought to be. • "A. Matter of Opinion." Urt* orß^P: it has not been shown properties quoted by the de- »•« exactly similar to Mr Gould's. .'■whole thing is only a matter of W®, anyhow. » submitted that, as a t"® of law, the Department hid not 1? lea l evidence at all. *nnU , °^ 1 P : I wouldn't say that. I give leave to appeal on that tot r e ey idenee in the Assess- • Court, there are only a very few of wheat among a great deal of v, ' "t still the assessors and I must jr to thresh out. f Freeman said that in his both Mr Gould's and Mr Gar- • properties were fully stocked. • ' . T l ® Criterion of Value. »j«o ora^P: of course. Both know 1 ? 60 af e getting as much as they Bjt . * to B e t out of their places. «itttU y » U B oin g to take that as a «re v Sn v alue of the place, or B°ing to take the criterion tiijL . ? the Department. I don't jo„„ all /> that if you talk all day ® *orth^ e ar ther. I doubt if it calling any more evi*erg sa 'd that the assessors tint u P° a to decide the objecbtt j I)n ° ~n P o ni their own knowledge, ha- evidence put before them. "lepjjk, 6 to call," he said, Z£„ th ® unimproved value of ?«t evrl B i wllicfl the Department has attempted to offer." Mr t >Hed] )v ?i 80 "gued that the evidence "ier T)rM,rs- P artmellt; regarding the ™ es Was not applicable to sot bp ees question, because it s^jj Bllown they were all Jtot y° u wer e to tie the - ■hpuli ha ru^es °t" evidence a li out ninety-nine %eit ana « e d cases that come be- ?* that he had only PrJk. ~® wi shed to call, who e Peat what he had vH his a^, <3na ld'a case, agreed to *5 eoaidlr^t 0 ' !T d the Court rc ' its decision.