ASSESSMENT COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 2676, 20 April 1885, Page 3

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Friday, February 27. [Before J. Giles, Esq., Judge.] Tho sit tins' of the Assessment Court for the revision of the Valuation List for the Bmongh of Kumara was held on Friday. The following objections were heard and dealt with : Robeit Millson objected to the valuation an excessive of sections 140 to 14G, 150 lo 153, and 178 Union street; 155 to 159, Ne.v Road; valued at- .£1 each. Also ih.it lm was nut the

owner of sections 147, Union street, 151 to 121, Zealand street, 132 and 138, E B road.—The valuations objected to as excessive were reduced to 10s, and the others struck out of the roll. Denis Hannan objpcted to the valuation of sections 136, Main street, LSO; 134 and 135, gardens, L 5 each ; 186, house, Tui street, L 1 0; and that he was not the owner of 188, garden, Tui street, valued at Ll.—Section 136 was reduced to L4O, 134 and 135 to L 3 each; and section 188, Mr Dungan's name to be substituted. Amos Nicholson objected to the valuation of section 122 (L 5), and 123 (L2O) as excessive.—The latter was reduced to LI 8. James Wykle stated that his name was inserted as owner of 81 sections, in Cashman street, valued altogether at at LIOO, whereas the several properties should be assessed separately, and not in one lump sum ; also that the valuation of properties named was excessive.—All the sections except 45 surrounding objector's house were struck out, and the valuation reduced to L 32. William Brown objected to the valuation of section 55, Main street, as excessive ; the building which was on same having been destroyed by fire.— Reduced from LI6 to LI. John Burr objected to his being described on Valuation Roll as owner of section 114, Seddon street, instead of Chairman of Directors or Legal Manager Long Tunnel Gold Mining Company, Limited; also that the valuation (L2O) was excessive. Valuation to be entered to Chairman of Directors Long Tunnel Company, and reduced to £lB. Matthew Davidson objected to valuation of section 312, Seddon street, described as an office, as excessive; there was no office on the section.—Struck out. Peter Dungan stated that his name appeared as owner of section 96, Main street, whereas he is not the owner of said section. Also that he is the owner of section 188, Tui street, and claims to have his name on Roll for same.— Objector's name struck out as occupier of section 96, Main street; section 188, Tui street, to stand at L 5 by consent of P. Dungan, a building haviug been erected on it. Some formal business concluded the sitting of the Court.