ASSESSMENT COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3014, 22 February 1881, Page 3

ASSESSMENT COURT.

BOROUGH OP NAPIER

(Before His Honor Judge Kenny.)

The Court sat this morning at 10.80.

Objections had been put in by the following: — Messrs Coleman, Hill, Holder, Morrison, Shirley, W, Smith and Wilkie, but as there was no appearance in any of these cases they were struck out.

Mr M. S. Bell objected to the assess* raentofhis property at £180 as being excessive. Last year the assessment had been £150, and there had been no improvements in the property since that assessment. Objections allowed, and assessment reduced to £150.

Mrs Tylee objected to the assessments on town sections 194, 195, 209, and 28. Mr Carlile appeared for the objector, and Mr Sainsbury for the Corporation. J. T. Tylee, sworn, stated that he knew all the properties referred to. Section 28, with a furnished house upon it, was let for £160 per annum for two years. The furuiture is considered worth £300. Section 195 had a store on it ; it was let for £1 per week; it had been put up for sale by auction, but there was no bid for it, Section 194 had been assessed at £16 ; it had been pssessed aa having a stable upon it, but there was no stable upon it. He considered £10 would be ample for it. Section 209 was about one-eighth of an acre; there was a cottage on it, which was let for £26 per annum. Mr Sainsbury agreed to the reduction of assessment on section 194 from £16 to £10, and that on section 195 to £42. Mr William?, borough valuer, said the land in the neighborhood of section 209 was let at 163 per foot frontage, and section 209 was very little inferior. He valued section 28 at £400 per acre, and the house at £1000, £8000 altogether, and he considered that a low valuation, Mr Carlile contended that the value of section 28 was, as stated by Mr Tylee, £2500. After some discussion His Honor reduced the assessment on section 28 to £125, and that on section 209 from £34 to £21.

Mr William Parker, on behalf of the School Commissioners, objected to the assessment on town section 289b. The site had been set aside fora school site, and had been vested in the School Board. Mr Sainsbury contended that the Act referred to sections upon wh'cb a school stood. There was no school upon this section, and it was liable to assessment, flis Honor said that the Act provided that, where the owner of a property was not known, the word " owner" could be put in, and it could be done in this case. The Court then rose.