ASSESSMENT COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 68, 20 March 1877, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

THIS DAY. [Before L. Broad, Esq., R.M.] His Worship, on the opening of the Court, said that on looking over the roll he found that the Corporation had departed from the schedule attached to the Act, and had invented a column for themselves showing the value, to sell of the properties. This was calculated to mislead the ratepayers, and might mislead the Court. He should decline to have anything at all to do with it unless absolutely necessary. The probability was that many of the ratepayers had been running -their heads against the value to sell, and had objected on that ground and if it proved to be so he should certainly allow them costs. Mr Acton Adams said that it had been necessi y in the case of a large number of properties in order to rate them at five per cent. His Worship: That is to say, they hare no annual value. Mr Adams: Not exactly, but it is so small. Another reason was that a deduction had to be made of 20 per cent on perishable property, and 10 per cent on land, consequently the value of the house and the land had to be given in order to show how the result had been arrived at. His Worship: I admit that this clause is a little obscure, biit I think it refers to vacant land. I shall decline to give the sanction of the Court to these values, and shall require the whole of these columns to be erased before sig aing the list, as I cannot admit a form that is not in accordance with the Act. You seem to have placed an unnecessary stumbling block iv the road, frightening people by these enormous sums. Mr Adams: It has been done more for convenience sake in order to inform the ratepayers of the basis on which they are to be rated. . His Worship: It is not that I object to giving the ratepayers information, but it is another thing to ask the Court to give its sanction to such a roll. Mr Fell: I wish to state that I have brought witnesses here to testify against the value to sell in some instances. His Worship : That is exactly what I anticipated. The ratepayers have been misled by the insertion of these columns. Mr Adams : I would ask your Worship then to strike out the subdivisions from the official roll. His Worship said that one objection had been lodged which was altogether informal, while the signature was an illegible scrawl that he could not possible decipher. On being referred to experts the signature was pronounced to be that of Mr Moss Davis. The following objections were then heard: W. C. Harley (appellant) Mr Pitt appeared for the appellant. Section 252 Cambria-street, assessed at £5 10s. After hearing evidence, the Court declined to alter the assessment. Sections 251, 252,253, Nile-street brewery, assessed separately, the total being £299. Mr Pitt objected to the three acreg being taken separately, as they were all part and parcel of one business. His Worship ruled that where property -was held as this was under one lease, and the whole of the houses and land used for one business, the whole should be treated as one property. He would adjourn the case until to-morrow afternoon in order to allow Mr Rout to re-assess it on the principle he had laid down. Sections 1004, 1002, 1000, 998, 996, Mo-tueka-street, Waimea-road, assessed at £28 10s, being 5 per cent on the value to sell, set down at £570. On examination by Mr Pitt the appellant said that he had bought the house and five acres in 1874 for £350. In cross-examination he stated that he had ploughed and fenced it, but had lost £30 a year on it. He would take £500 for it. (Mr Adams: You'll have that offered for it as soon as you leave the box.)' Mr Field stated that he considered the value of the laud to let at £5 per acre at the outside. The value to sell might be from £70 to £80 per acre. He thought that Mr liarley had wasted a deal of money on it. Mr Rout: I have based my assessment on the prices paid for land recently sold in that locality. I know several people who would be glad to give £57(> for the property. Mr H. E. Curtis valued the property at I £700. r Cross-examined: I had the option of purchasing the land at £500 four or five years ago, but declined to do so. His Worship' was of opinion that the valuer had hit on a happy medium between the two extremes. Valuation supported. John Symons (appellant) No. 2188, assessed at £137. Mr Fell said that this was a most absurd I assessment. The value to sell of the land j was set down at £2640, the value of the cradle £100, and the rateable value at £137. Mr Symons was not owner or occupier at all. He simply had a letter from the Provincial Secretary giving him permission to place blocks of timber there to be removed if required at three months' notice. Mr Acton Adams said that he was not aware that such was Mr Symons' tenure. He would withdraw the assessment. Anchor Foundry, rateable value assessed at £339. Mr Felt was of opinion that the assessment of this property should have been based on the value to sell. Mr Symons stated that the frontage of the land waa 264 feet, and the available depth 30 feet. The land might now be worth £4 per foot, but that was the outside value. Tuc buildings and land together stood in the books at from £1500 to £1600. If put up for sale he doubted whether a purchaser could be found at £1000. If liis steamers were removed the concern could not be kept going. Except for this particular business the premises were not worth over £50 a year. Walter Good stated that the whole buildings had cost £981. W. Rout, examined by Mr Adams: I valued the laud at £6 per foot. I valued Moutray's Foundry first, and on going to the Anchor Foundry I calculated that it was worth twice as much. I think the land and buildings by themselves without the machinery are worth £250 a year nett. His Worship said that it appeared to him that altogether the value to sell of the property with fixtures was £2300, which at 5 per cent would be £115, at which sum he should fix the rateable value. Government Wharf and land, assessed at £350 rateable value. Adjourned in order to decide the question whether, the wharf only being let, the lessee was liable for the land on which it stood. Albion Wharf, assessed at £514 rateable value. Reduced to £300.

; N. Edwards (appellant.) Dwelling house and surrounding lands, assessed at £370 rateable value. Reduced by consent to £200. J". R. Mjbin (appellant.) Business premises in Bridge-street, assessed at £127s 10s. Reduced by consent to £80. - The Court was still sitting when we went to press.