ASSESSMENT COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 69, 21 March 1877, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

(Before L. Broad, Esq., R.M.) After our reporter left the Court yesterday, the following objections were heard: Thomas Hurley (appellant). Mr Pitt, on behalf of . the appellant, withdrew the objections against the assessment of sections 432, 436, 438, 455, 456, 671, 672, and 685, as the objections had been lodged through a mistake. Section 156, a half-acre section at the corner of Wainiea and Hardy-streets, assessed rateable value £38, being 5 per cent on £760 the alleged value to sell. After a deal of argument the assessment was reduced to £25. Four acres fronting Collingveood, Grove and Cambria-streets, reduced from £91 to £55. '.-■■■ ■;.■ Eight other acres were reduced to £12 103, per acre, being 5 per cent on £250," the value' to sell. A. reduction was also made upon a section at the corner of Collingwood and Halifaxstreets. On the application of Mr Pitt £2 2s costs were allowed to Mr T. Harley. Samuel Ironside (Appellant). On an objection made by Mr H, Adams, the assessment was reduced by consent from £88 to £60. Professional costs £1 is allowed. Poynter's Executors (Appellants). Reductions were made in this assessment from £156 10s to £45. Costs were allowed, Mr Sharp £1 Is, professional assistance £1 Is' Buf,rd (Appellant). Two acres of hop gardens, assessed at £30 and £20 10s respectively. Mr Pitt appeared for the appellant. Assessment reduced on the first to £12 10s, and on the. second to £10. A small wharf rented by the appellant was assessed at £105, but after a long fight was reduced to £62 10s. Professional costs £1 Is were allowed. H. Warren (appellant). Mr Pitt appeared for appellant, and succeeded iu obtaining a reduction of the assessment from £105 to £62 10s. The Court then adjourned until 3 p.m. today. THIS DAY. W. Ilarley (appellant). Raglan Brewery, assessed at £299. This was by mutual consent reduced to £250, John Symotis (appellant.) Government Wharf. His Worship said he would like to hear counsel for the appellant on the following poinfc:— That the wharf is attached to and part of the freehold; that any sale of the land must necessarily include the wharf; that the lease of the wharf must include a lease of so much of the land at any rate as is occupied by the piles; and that therefore there is such a beneficial occupation

of some land as brings the wharf within the definition of " rateable property.?' .: Mr Fell jsaid he wotydjlike time to consider the matter^ which was a. difficult question of law. hearing was then adjourned until iSatufday, at lOani. •.Aif offer .was made by the Corporation toassess the wharf at £206; but this was refused by the appellant, who stated that it was not worth anything like that sum, and that the wonder was that it had not ere this provided work for a coroner and jury. j