ASSESSMENT COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1848, 6 September 1913, Page 14

ASSESSMENT COURT.

TUIS PARAPAKATJMU CASE. The ■ Assessment Court was occupied yesterday in considering a point raised in valuation law, and also some rather unusual statements. In this case, AY. J. Hoiivell, lessee of a number of secof jNativo land at Paraparaumu, was the objector. Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., presided, and he had with hiin Messrs. H.. li. Leighton and O. P. Lynch, assessors. Mr. F. N. Martin appeared for the Valuation Department, Mr. F, Newman lor the objector, and Mr. M. F. Luckie for certain Native lessors. The case for the objector had been heard at a previous sitting of the Court. Mr. Luckie, in opening, the case for t'lie Natives, stated that Mr. Howell's primary object in seeking to have tho valuations reduced must be with a vipw to the purchase at the reduced value, in case tho Natives should wish to sell. Mr. Hosvell had obtained leases for two pc-riods of 21 years, tho first period of which had 16 years to run. When Natives got. into difficulties in any way, they had no option but to sell their land. If these Native owners now got into that position tho only person who would bo in a position to buv would be Mr. Howell, as he had these long leases. In such cases the Government valuation was almost always the pur-' cliasc price. Mr. Howell had said that ho had objected to tho valuation because of the rates, but (counsel continued) even on tho most favourablo of these reductions the difference of rates would not amount to more than £8. Before Mr. Howell obtained these leases tho valuations were reduced by 48 per cent, without a sitting of tho Court. Mr. Howell admitted that lie had been instrumental in obtaining this reduction, but it could not be ascertained who made tho objection. There was no trace of .tho statement of objection among the Valuation Department records. : ..Mr. Martin said that he was not the valuer at the time, but ho could say that tho practice of the Department was that if only one or two objections were'made in a district, an 'endeavour was made to arrive at a settlement in order to avoid the oxpense of a'council sitting. It was not known who made tho objection. Tho Natives said that thoy did not, and that they ?a_ve no one authority to object on their' behalf. But tho Department had to presume. when an objection was made, that tho objector had authority to make it. \ A number of witnesses were called by Jlr. Luckie in support of the Government valuation. _ Tho magistrate intimatod that the Court was not able to come to an immediate determination, as there had not been sudicinnt time to nnnlvso the figures. His Worship added that lie would hear what counsel had to say on tho point as to whether the lessee had power to object 1 to the Government valuations, when the lessors did not, on Monday morning. Decision is to be given on Wednesday. VALUATION LAW. A point in valuation law was next discussed. In explaining the case of tbreo objeptors—Messrs. Martin,- Nicholls, and Wilkins—for whom he appeared, Mr. A', do B. Brandon stated that the properties had been offered to the Government undor Section 3 of tho Act. The Government had declined to take the land, and bad agreed to reduce tho valuation , to ,the ; owners' estimates. But :in making the reduction the Valuer-General had divided, it proportionately : between . the unimproved value and tho value of improvements. Tho owners contended that the whole of the reduction should have been made in the unimproved value. Thoy accepted tho original Government valuation of improvements. The capital value . was , tho - selling value, but they could not arrive at the selling "value of the improvements. Thoy had to take those improvements for what thoy were- worth to the land. Then thoy arrived at tho unimproved value by a process of deduction. Jlr. F. N. Martin, who represented tho Valuation Department, submitted that the Valuer-General had no option but to make tho reduction in proportion. If. as Mr. Brandon contended, they took tho capital value first and subtracted from it tho valuo of improvements, thoy might have a property so overloaded with improvements that the unimproved value would be a minus quantity. Ho concluded that tho corrcct method of valuation was to arrivo at the selling or capital value: then tho unimproved value, representing the selling price of the land without the improvements. If tho yalue of improvements with tho unimproved valuo made a sum greater than the capital value a reapportionment of the values would have to take place. In reply, Air. Brandon remarked that ho spoke of the valuo of improvements to the land. This would, be contended, ' not pormit overloading with iniprovo- ' ments. . . | The magistrate reserved decision.