ASSESSMENT COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2477, 15 March 1882, Page 3

ASSESSMENT COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. On resuming, the appeals in the South-west Ward were proceeded with, as follows : D. Cameron, section 12, .£2B reduced to .£24 ; D. Cameron, section 13, £36 reduced to £32 ; B. H. Wood, section 89, £95 reduced to £72 ; W. Dearsley, section 96, £3B reduced to £23 ; G. McClatchie, section 150, £I6OO reduced to £SOO ; Daniel Reese, section 229, £135 reduced to £9O; A. Anlsebrook, section 244, £l5O reduced to £130; J. B. Steel, section 262, £35 reduced to £2B; J. Martin, section 264, £65 reduced to £6O; B. Midgley, section 265. £2O reduced to £lO ; M. Gourlay, section 306, £8 reduced to £6; Jas. Thorean, sections 465-6, £)4 reduced to £l2 each; H. Henwood, section 487, £32 reduced to £2O; J. W. Treadwell, sections 535 540, £l4 reduced to £l2 each ; Joseph Zein, section 593. £55 reduced to £SO; A. Anisebrook, sections 594-6, £lB9 reduced to £154 ; J Venables, section 642, £25 reduced to £22 ; William Wilson, section 721, £3B reduced to £35 ; T. Ridley, sen., section 749, £25 reduced to £2O ; E. Willis, section 767, £42 reduced to £35; E. Willie, section 769, £4O reduced to £35 ; W. J. '•‘haw, section 813, £3O reduced to £24 ; F. B. Lloyd, section 831, £450 reduced to £3OO.

The appeal of the Trustees of Sfc. Paul’s Presbyterian Church against the assessment of the old ohnrch, now used for prayer meetings and entertainments in connection with Church work, was, after argument by Mr Harper on behalf of the trustees, and Mr Garrick for the City Council, allowed. In the case of the schoolroom attached to the Durham street Church, heard on Monday, and on which judgment was reserved until the above case was disposed of, the appeal was allowed, Mr Watson appearing for the trustees. Thirteen disputed assessments were upheld.

The Court for hearing and determining objections to the rate roll for the borough of Sydenham for 1882 opened at the Borough Council office this morning at 11 o’clock. Mr Caleb Whitefoord, R.M., presided, Mr G. A. Buck being Clark of the Court. The following objections wore sustained: —T. Bevan, section 518, £45 reduced to £4O; MoDowall, section 507, £32 reduced to £29 ; MoDowall, section 508, £33 reduced to £29; Q-. McClatchie, section 1709, £22 reduced to £18; J. Guilford, section 1552, £l9 reduced to £l6 ; T. Butler, section 723, £l6 reduced to £l3 ; T. Butler, section 724, £lB, reduced to £l4; H. Hanmer, section 290, £lB reduced to £10; B. Duckworth, section 2208, £l6 reduced to £l2 ; A. A. Smith, section 31, £l6 reduced to £ls ; A. A. Smith, section 30, £6 reduced to £8 j A. A. Smith, section 33, £l2 reduced to £lO ; A. A. Smith, section 34, £l4 reduced to £lO ; A. A. Smith, section 265, £SB reduced to £52; David Main, section 596, £24 reduced to £23.

Nine disputed assessments were upheld. The total assessment of the borough for the current year, as returned by tho assessor, was £53,413. This amount is reduced £55 only by the judgment of the Court, as particularised above.