ASSESSMENT COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 67, 18 April 1879, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Eoxtok, April 16. (Before E. Ward, .Esq., Judge.) , -- Mr Moinet, valuer to tlie Local Board, handed iv the statutory de claration and valuation list. My. Ward said before the business of the Cdurt began he desired to make a few remarks regarding the appointment of valuators, &c. Ag a rule the work of valuation was not begun early enough, nor did the local bodies exercise sufficient oare in watching the progress made by the valuer appointed. Generally they appeared to consider they had done their duty if they made the appointment, leaving everything else in his hands. Instead of this, they should see that he carried out the law, step by step, as required by the Act, so that the Court might not be adjourned owing to the list not being completed in time. In many cases ratepayers who were wrongly valued travelled miles, brought their witnesses with them, and suffered loss, only to find that upon some technical ground the valuation list was thrown out, and the Uourt adjourned The Act was cleat* regarding the matter, and whilst there was some excuse when it first came into operation for the errors that occurred, now he thought there was none j and therefore no excuse for a second valuation list being required. In the present case, without reflecting on Mr. Moinet, the valuation list had been thrown out solely because an affidavit had not been made by the valuer. The Board should have supplied him with a copy of the Act, that he might know what was required of him. He also thought great, care should be exercised in the appointment of valuators, aud that proficient men should at all times be secured if possible. It was customary with some bodies to appoint the Clerk valuator, jbut frequently gentlemen who were good Clerks were inferior valuators. He hoped his remarks would be taken kindly by the various Local Bodies. His sole object was to guard against the possibility of two lists being required on a future occasion. Dr. llockstrow said he wished to make a remark or two. Mr. Moinet's first list was prepared under instruc* tions from the old Local Board, which had since resigned*in a body The present Board was not responsible for what their predecessors had done. Mr. Thynne flatly contradicetd Mr Eockstrow's statement. Two new members had been elected. That was the only difference. Mr Moinet said a sale of land had taken place on Saturday afternoon March 29, and the list had been made up on Monday, March 31. The land in question had belonged to the late Mr Mushet,and had changed owners. He asked who was to be rated for it. Mr liiddeil sent in an objection to the valuation list, he not being occupier of the land, as stated in the list. The word " owner " was therefore inserted in the list for sections Nos. 8, 95, 106, and 487. E. S. Thynne objected to the valuation of section 100, and asked that the name of Jas. Linton be inserted instead of his own, as the occupier, Objection granted. Same — That the valuation of £150 upon his property was excessive. He said the valuer had altered it from the first list he produced, owing to pressure brought to bear upon him The firm paid only £50 per annum for it. He thought £75 a fair valuation. Property had gone down onethird. Mr Liddell being called, considered £100 was a fair valuation. Valuation reduced to £100. John Harris objectel to the valuation of £45 upon his property as excessive. He said he was rate! moro than, the adjoining property. He thought lb's per week would be what he would get if rented. Objection disallowed. John Purcell objected to his valuation at £50, as excessive. He was unable to get 10s per week for it. Mr Moinet said Mr Purcell had on previous occasions been rated at £55. Mr LnliMl st.nl ho thought the house was w ■»«'?.h £jo w £40 p<*r annum. Ml 1 \V. (i. ii ) i is.ll' r iil^t. til i property ivhm i• » i l-s 6d p»jr week. Mr Li'liivn 1 .i»ij i, i,o) L ),u- <uiuu;n a fair valuation. The property was rated at £35. S. A. Trask objocted to a rate of £30. Mrs Trask appeared in support of the objection. She thought £15 would be a fair valuation. Dr Rockstrow gave evidence in support of the application. Rateable value reduced to £15, This concluded the business of the Court.