VALUATION OF HOTELS.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 61, 13 March 1901, Page 4

VALUATION OF HOTELS.

AN INTERESTING CASE,

The Magistrate’s Court was occupied for the greater part of yesterday morning hearing a claim brought by James Whinray against It. H. Campbell, of the Turanganui Hotel, to recover the sum of £37 for work and labor done by the plaintiff as valuator for the defendant. Mr DeLautour appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lincoln Rees for the defendant. Mr DeLautour, in opening the case, said that the total valuation was £1287 13s lid, and the claim was based on the usual estimate of 5 per cent, for the first £2OO, and 21 per cent, for the balance. An attempt would be made by the other side to prove that this was not an ordinary' valuation, but was affected by an extraordinary fact which would make it inequitable and improper for plaintiff to claim full commission. The case turned upon this question. The stock and fixture were to be taken at valuation, based on invoiced price, £SO to be allowed on the whole transaction. His client was engaged as a valuator, with no special contract as to fee. Jas. Whinray deposed that he was an appraiser and valuator in business in Gisborne, and had been for nearly a quarter of a century: As a valuator he had been recently engaged to value the stock and furniture of Mr Campbell, nothing being said as to rate. He had done the work, Mr Cumming valuing for the purchaser. They had taken four days over the work, and had put in a considerable portion of a night in his office. The rates of commission were the usual rates that he had been in the habit of receiving. lan Simson, Government valuer, deposed that he had had a wide experience as an hotel valuer and auctioneer. He was in the habit of charging five per cent, all round for valuations, invoice or no invoice. He considered the charge was a low one. John Townley, furniture dealer, also gave evidence as to the charges for commission in connection with tho valuation of hotels. He did not think that the presence of invoices should make any difference to the amount charged by a valuer. Tho rate in the present case was a fair one.

Mr Rees, in opening for the defence, said the charge was an unreasonable one, and on that account the defendant objected to pay. J. M. Cumming, agent, deposed that he was employed by Mr Mackey to take over the stock and furniture at invoice prices, and deduct £SO that had been arranged. He did not look upon the business as a valuation, and -the work done was certainly not worth more than £3 3s per day. They started on Tuesday at 12 o’clock and finished on the Friday. John Sheridan, agent, carrying on business in Gisborne, stated that he acted as broker in connection with the sale of the hotel. The terms were that so much was to be paid for the goodwill of the lease, and Mr Mackey had the option of taking the stock and furniture at invoice prices, less a deduction of £SO, or at a valuation in the ordinary way. Mr Mackey elected to take it at the invoice prices, less the £SO. Assuming that the invoices were there and that expert knowledge was not required, £5 5s a day would bo enough to charge. R. H. Campbell, the defendant, said that in selling the hotel he got so much for the good-will, stock, and furniture at a valuation. That was the first arrangement, but Mackey and Sheridan subsequently arranged to knock £SO off the price and take stock at invoice prices to save the expense of valuation. He informed Mr Whinray, who had furnished the house, to this effect, and Mr Whinray expressed his satisfaction with the proposal. Mr Whinray was quite clear that witness was saving £SO by. doing away with the valuation. He had bought nearly £7OO worth of furniture from Mr Whinray, forTwhich he (Mr Whinray) had the full invoices. He had when buying promised Whinray that when he sold out he would get him to value. When Whinray applied for £37, he offered him £2O, which he refused. Corroborative evidence was given by E. H. Mackey. After hearing argument by counsel the Magistrate said that in his opinion it was a valuation, and from the evidence it appeared that the rate charged was a fair one. With regard to the invoices being used, that did not affect the case in tho slightest. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs £5 6s.