PALMERSTON ASSESSMENT COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 38, 22 March 1879, Page 2

PALMERSTON ASSESSMENT COURT.

I TmraaDAY, MAboh, 2Oxh, 1879. (TBefcre-L -his Honor Jiidge WiJ|J>j' ' ';- tow BECiibK No. 2.. '"' . ■ ' ; \ : Joseph. Beale, the lessee of town Section l -t No. 2, Palmewtqn, appealed ■ against th» assessment made by the Corporation. Valuator, oath* plea that a, portion of. the.build- , ing for. which lie wa^ i^te4 "^ras : Jj|ot m his possession, no* di4 : S^^n^Tei^-SBnt*^ 4 besides which fact, although tbii Boi»ugh had rated hint at £80i hel was onlr payinar £65. '; : : ' * : i, ■- :.-. ; v^ The Valuator stated that, at the; time the assessment WAS.ni&de,^, lie was under th© : impression Mr. Beale was m. occupation of _ the whole/ of the/ premises/. While he^] therefore, felt that the valuation of £80wa». notexcessive, he did not wish to clain> mori? from Mr. Beale than- that for which he wak ' justly liable. / ,£$ The Jtrnaß; agreed thajb if £80, r were not excessive, the difference between what Mr.. Beale was paying as isnt «nd £j&jsh^igdb<v paid by the owner.. .The Valuation of Mr. Beale's premises would therefore ibe rtdticedj to £65 the- owner accenting ;the furthtr .MBppnjbibility of £15.. " " 1 towK SECqneaNis, 297JC298, 289^ ' ' 3 Mr. Bbale objected, Ijo the. rate up^>n the. above sections, and i^'wply to the Valuator^ : (Mr. Keeling) said the- rent \^hich -the paid' •war no criterion upon which, tp base the. 1 yaluation, inasmuch as he (Mr. Beaje) had rented which comprised 27 , acres, for a, slaughliering_ yard, agji frig forced to;pay £1 pec treek, douWe its! Value.; The Corporation had refused him p«noiiaipn to slaughter, and consequently the land i^ <not worth mpi* than ten shillingji. perweek."" -■•;'■■■ •'■ ■ '--."■.:'■-..:.:: : Mr. KielikOt stated: that the paddqckr : were, capital grazing grounds, th'e'grass up^on them being of the mpst luxuriant character: , Mr. Bexjb maintained that that could [scarcely be urged mil re/uon for »n i&f. ' creased ralue. '* " r -v* His Hokob was inclined: to; disagree with, t that opinion, and pointed oub : t)iat- if good? I grass were, gxqwn upon the land it would be. a reason for aii increased T*aluatioW,uifon '^he~ ■ame principjß-thai)i96ne.ofi;wo houses upon. ! a property were a hotel, it would commend a higher vahiationthan tie prirate house. He ! did not thint the figure' at which they were. . rated too high, and should decline to re> duce^ ■ • ■"• ." : : •"!.■•■■'•:;''■" •■"'•■•", .. , '*'„■ xqvpg ißECTiqir Nb^B4. ;r ';t - Charles Walker appeared ; to sustain Ws appeal against the. racing of, his .property m, v • Tapnti? sfareet. " .The;- premises' I l^ui J»e^^' v 6rigin»ily built for a butcher's-shop/'butfji . bad- hot .been let for a considerably, time; ■ In conseq,uence> therefore, he. wa* about' to turn it into a cott^e, when, of, cource.it ' would npt command such a high rental, aW ihould.nofc be rateii at £25. ;?i The Valttatob said that! when, he made, his valuation he. considered fact of.^here. .being ashop, which always made •prbpeirty more valuable;' Ofcourse he lyad ho knowledge of M^. Walker's intention, bo alter the. premises. . "" '"'\ Mr. Walkbe snd he sliould not hate ap-. • peared, w.er.e)tjn.ofc.tlutf haring lodged his objection, it became nacessary t» explain, as. tie did not wish ilj to be thought he had made any writt »n statemenfa which "could nqt be substantiated by equity or justice; !: The Assbssojb thought that; the fact of the* shop being unletable,- and a?r alteration to a dwelling £ouse being necessary, would? reduce the value, and K(^ would reduce to £20. . •■'''-'■ : ■''■-■'•■•■■■■■*- -; ' ' -■ TO-mi EfEcniioKS 857^-859, 861^863. : ! J; H. Sn^lson made application, for a re^ dmction of the valuation upon hw sections above named, which, had beeoL raited at 125., £5 125., £5 125., dßd^a. respectively. In answer to the Court he stated 1 that he. w,outd take £300. for the fourllolgv The Judge pointed out thai according to the Act the 'very lowest rate* ijfaa five percent, which would be £15, 'While he was at » »«?J;al ofc£2^"4teiy v lt' must; however, .be taken into cansiderafcton that fcholand referred to. was town land, and what was more, Palm&r9ton,to\vji land, for whiciv eight or even ten pelv cent;; w.duld^not btv too inu.ohi ;-iHe. would 1 advise^ the objector. .to.iiioil <vo, to;fc&.as S3ofcbns,: : as- he felt sure- . Lk;?» would easily^e^se or exett JROXft.

He could see nothing to induce him to X9t. duce the Valuator's estimate., „ .\ ] THE HOKO^rHiTir.KBSBBViI -" Fiitz Jenssen, acting ° n behalf of Messrs. Bichter, JTahnestadiCo., appeared to appeal against being rated to the extent of £250 for the Hokpwhitu Rererve. It wu not by any means.mtheocicapdt.ion of the firm, who merely^field; .a -lease i /from the maoris for the privilege of cntting timber, for which they pay tithes according to the quantity cut. By the lease* the firm was allowed to graze the; working bullocks upon the land, but there its privilege ended, as neither one of the partners -nor any one else by their leave could graze cattle on or cultivate the: land. Tte deed of agreement enjomed that half a mifllon of feet/pf timber should be cut each year, and'for the privilege of doing, so something like £500 had to be paid, so that :; it. would be that, without being the occupiers of the land, double payment should be enacted. The JtJDOB agreed that under the circumstances it could scarcely he held that Messrs Eichter, Nanstatl : & Co., wfere the occupiers, and ordered it to be struck out.