ASSESSMENT COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 57, 18 March 1881, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

♦ (Before R. Ward, Esq., Judge.) Wednesday, March 16. FOXTON LOCAL BOARD DISTRICT. Re objection of J. Purcell. — The valuer, Mr Osborne, stated that Messrs Cook and Reeve were willing to bear their share of the rates for the sections he objected to at last sitting of the Court. — Valuation List altered accordingly. There being no further objections to the valuation list, the Judge declared it duly passed. FOXTON HIGHWAYS BOARD DISTRICT. Mr W. G. Robinson produced the minute book of the Board to prove his appointment as Clerk and Valuer to the Board ; also, a Gazette extending the time for preparation of the valuation roll. He also gave evidence to the effect that all the requirements of the Act had been complied with. F. B. Larkworthy objected to the valuation list. He was rated for section 30. It is a reserve, and he was neither occupying nor exercising any right over it. He also objected to the value placed upon sections 533, 534, 535, 555, 251, 96-9, 104, 434, 924, as excessive. Mr Gower said the three sections lirst mentioned fronted the river. The value placed upon them was at the rate of £4 per acre. He contended they were worth only 30s per acre. They contained 520 acres. It is swamp land, unfenced and unimproved, During last year a main drain was cut through the property. He himself owned 125 acres lower down the Manawatu river, and was offered only £2 for it a month or two ago, but refused to sell at that price. The Moutoa estate is four miles from Foxton, but there is no road to it. Section 434 is valued at £4 per acre, and that has been fenced and drained. Section 555 contained 7000 acres— of which 2000 acres was valued at £6 per acre. He considered 1400 acres only were worth £5 per acre. He considered the remaining 5600 acres should be valued at £1 10s acre, instead of £2 per acre. The improvements on the 1400 acres consisted of draining, bush falling, and sowing in grass. The 5600 acres had a main drain through it, but that was principally for the purpose of carrying off water for the 1400 acres. They paid 10s per acre, 10s was to be spent in draining, and he allowed another 10s increase of value. Section 251, 70 acres, was valued at £7 per acre. He contended it should not be valued at more than £5. It was all bush, and not improved in auy shape or form. Sections 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 104 were all along the river bank, and he valued them at 30s per acre, as they were inaccessible, and were consequently not occupied. Section 433, valued at £6 per acre, should be valued at £4 per acre. Land on the land side was worth more than that beside the river. The only improvement on section 434 was that 20 acres of bush had been felled. Mr M'Pherson, who had large improvements, owned the adjoining section, and was valued at £6 per acre. By Mr Robinson— Sections 533, 534, and 535 are valued same as last year ; the drain cut through them is only 3 feet deep ; I do not say the land has depreciated £2 10s in value since the flood ; it was an oversight that I did not object to the valuation on those sections last year ; the land was never worth more than 30s per acre ; the drain was begun before the flood last year ; it has not improved the fitness of the land for occupation ; it may have improved its value to sell to a slight degree ; I did not advertise the land of my own I spoke of as having being offered £2 per acre for ; the improvements on the 1400 acres are at the rate of £2 per acre ; we are willing to sell the property at less than the assessed value ; the flood was 3, 6, 8, and 9 feet on portions of the property ; I believe Mr Larkworthy would sell the property now. By the Judge— l had never before seen so high a flood as that of last year ; I believe it is 30 years since so high a flood last took place ; I do not say we would take 30s per acre, but that sum would represent £20,000, the value the Property Tax has accepted upon this property. John Purcell deposed— Sections 533, 534 and 535 I would not take as a gift ; I own 106 acres adjoining and have spent £1500 upon it ; the winter freshes kill the grass, and it has to be sown each year ; I consider Mr Gower's valuation of 30s per acre under the mark ; the drain spoken of has undoubtedly increased the selling value ; the 1400 acres are worth £5 per acre. Section 434 is worth £3 per acre ; it would be worth £6 acre under grass. Mr Thynne deposed — Section 30 is a reserve for the use of the Township of Moutoa ; it is a Government reserve ; sections. 533. 534, 535 I know ; I was agent for 531 —Mr Fenton's land ; the owners would not sell for less than £4 per acre ; I consider the property is worth more than 30s per acre ; Mr Larkworthy paid £1 per acre for the block eight years ago ; if you add interest on the money, they have made a decidedly bad bargain, if it is now worth only 30s ; but as they are constantly improving it they appear not to have lost all faith in it ; the witness then proceeded to describe at length the improvements effected on the Moutoa estate ; Mr Ward ruled as follows — Section 30 to be struck out ; sections 533-5 reduced to £2 per acre ; section 555 — 1400 acres to be reduced to £5 per acre, 5, 600 acres to remain at £2 per acre ; section 251, 71 acres, to be reduced to £5 ; sections 924, 96-9, and 104, to be reduced to £3 ; section 434 to be reduced to £4 per acre. Section 95 was transferred from F. B. Larkworthy to "Owner," Mr Robinson stated that he understood a man named Timothy M'Carthy, a resident of Ireland, was the owner. James Norton objected to the value placed upon his property. No appearance of objector. Case struck out. J. M'Lennan objected to being rated for sections322and 323 by the Foxton Highways Board, on the ground that he was already rated for them by the Sandon Highways Board, also that the valuation placed upon them was excessive. The Judge made a careful examination of the map, and ascertained from a comparison of the map with the Gazette containing the boundaries that the sections objected to are in the Foxton Highways District. The objection was therefore dismissed. Objector did not appear in support of his statement that the valuation was excessive. F. Robinson objected to being rated for sections 382 and 383, on tho ground that they are native fishing reserves for which he has no lease. He stated that the natives have the full use, and in lieu of fencing he pays them a small sum, £5 and £3, as trespass money. The greater part is water. The Judge said that as objector had no legal possession of the land, and as the natives could not be rated, the sections must be struck ont. The valuer applied to have several amendments made in the list, due notice having been given to the parties interested. The alterations asked for were made, and the roll then finally passed.