RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 21, 21 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before L.; B»oad> Esq., R.M.); , . i( ,; Saturday, Octobei 19. ».; ' - ; ., ; Stanley v. Upper Motueha Yall&j I^bad Boa^d: " : ■ Some additional evidence was taken in r 'thiß* case, which was fully; argued. Judgment fwaa' reserved. y '" : ' -.•'■■"■■'' <:i •'■■"'■'■. ''. y - :: !' i; ':'?_ . . BoUand versus the Same. u ;'\: ''ll} This was an appeal against'the assessments fo'yy the'BtJardj'the'apßellarit KaVing 'been- 'assessed at 3 £1000 for property which he, stated. was; only _ woirth £600. Messrs Augarde, Flowers, '«W"i ' ■jGi'bbs^ati'd- Andrews Vere called? and Tespectivfily^ ; valued the land at .£soo^ £600, £500, and £539. mi.- Fell,i for • the Board, called ;Mr..; H.l *y Curtis, land agent; who had t gone up specially to value for the Board and deposed to £1450 being the value, and the Secretary, Mr. Knyvetfc, Btatedthat it waß : w6rtK^roDS-JEloao to £1200. Mr Acton Adams, for "the appellant; pointed out. . the?abßurdity;i6^.Mr t ;Ourjiiß' f i^aliungr^.:pr6pertK jar £1450* .which the o^nerjW^o taust ;beßt know ■the character of '-the soil,i&c.i had sworn that he would-accept -:£sppj for, ;^,i>wWch . fi^ure^er^ad^ Ipla'ced itin an agent's hand's tot, suld^* Froni <Be •" (evidence that had^eenSglyeniihe submitted that jthe, value lay between £sQo;Jand. £6oo. "■''"■ ; v }• Mr Fell replied, stating ■tha^rh? shoa|d 7 .]eave, ■ sthe matterifn'Siielliiaijia'idf; thl& f Behclii; Jtudgineiit \< i/re6ervedi r^^^^' ? 'f^?^ ; -^:^'- <*&&-?■■■ %■ ■■? •^d Mr iEeiriofet^e;ieß^^

1 $* had been assesstd^ifc^SQOO, but by artaflgement was entered for, £700lthe^oard iayiiil nsts. W) , .'■ % I ft- \ JPhts-:©ay. :s^ - Stanley*?. Upper moiueka Road Board. His Worship delivered the fallowing judgment this morniDg: — I find that the witnesses examined in the above matter differ very considerably in their estimates of iße .v.ahie oftthe appellant's,pro--perty. The appellant' arid'hia Witnesses v'ahbuttly ■• estimate the TTjarktt -value <if- the -property for . sals.at over £2000. nnder ; ,|3:ioj),,and /; ,up.der £4000, none of them ihinking wbrth?'more than the latter sum, which, the appellant say^s, is the price, he is willing to seller. The valuer for \.t he Hoard, Mr CoTti?, tiriuks the mat ket value is'£?7oo, and the Secretary, Mr Knyyett, puts the value at ; £7OOO. I should- haveifelt cori6iderabie ; !Bifßculty in arriving at a conclusion satisfactory Ho myself in thoface of such conflicting valuations^ but 0;r-. the-lig'hb thrown- up6n:the caee by theseviience of Mr Knyvett; with Regard ton the valuation,'jand; subsequent reduction of that valuation^ of Messrs EUis'ahA^SKafp's property.' Mr Kny.vett say3:~ " r l he Board valued Sharp and JSllit's".property;.as; £7f : ot>. The Board ••have, 1 since--Mc-. Sharp 'gave notice: of appeal; agreed to reduce^thab assessment; by £1200. The. relative rvalue -;of Sharp's; and-' Stanlej'a, properties. for, sale in the market would be about £'\ dot) in favor of Sharp's"" 'Now, the ■Board are- bound- to; assess, accofdingriitp jthe lvalue to sell, nnd they have volun'arily placed the va]ue"of (Ellis and Sharp's pr;6perty at £SSOO. In the first place they v assessed Messrs Ellis and : Sharp at£7ooo, Mr ' Stanley"' is assessed at £5900. The BVjaVd* ' thus- .lackno.wreaged>i:.nw;bat;, tlieii? Secretary has since stated on oath to be the fact, that Sharp's property is worth -more — in -themafkjefi than Stanley's.' :This.; being 6o,in :^oiider lhat even-handed' justice_may be donej 1 1"order that the assessment on Stanlpy,'^., property he reduced to'* -£'4,706,' the- amount 'deducted- Tjeing exactly the relative difference put by the Board itself between the properties, of : Mr Stanley, and M essrs Sharp .and j Ellis — r Anjorder^was; accordingly given against the. Bpard .with costs £f> 2s. ! -■■■ ' Crcagh y.JohttSymoits. i This wasan uctiqn r lo : r^cov,er iißo for the wrongful dismissal ot' the' plaintiff as master, of the Bs. Kennedy Defen-tant paid £10 into Court. Judgement was given lor the amount paid in,-with'c6Btß,- l £4- I&s.-'agairtst tlie plaintiff.