ASSESSMENT COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 8, Issue 480, 10 June 1919, Page 4

ASSESSMENT COURT.

(Continued from page 3.) ring-fenced and sub-divided. He had 300 chains of fencing which, he said, cost £3.50 to put down. He valued his eleven-roomed house at £I2OO, because to put it up now would cost that amount. The house was constructed in heart of kauri. To the President: He wanted £l7O deducted from the unimproved value and added to the improvements. He did not want to sell, nor did he want to tell anyone what he wanted for it. Mr Wily said he thought the £172 a very reasonable reduction to make. To Mr Morgan : The land was originally all bush, because he saw it almost after tho Maori War. He never said hia land was similar to that up the Karaka. He was a chain from a poet office, store, factory, and bootmaker, in fact, it was quite close to the little village of Rama Kama, His land was similar to other sections about. Mr Morgan said he had put up the unimproved value to about £22 an aerf>. lie thought the place was worth easily £35, but he valued it at £32. Appellant said a land agent asked him if he wanted to sell, and he replied in the negative. The land agent said he (appellant) was the firat man he ever knew of who did not want to sell. To the, President: The execators ! would never sell it, as he would hand it down to posterity so that it would not be for sale. Mr "Vily thought the amount of £172 should be deducted from the unimproved value and added to the improvements. Mr Allan thought the values should remain. The President took a similar view, and the valuation was sustained. W. OT-IMVEN Mr W. Guiniven of Kama Rama, owner and cccupier of Lots 51 to 54, 73,77, 86 and 87, 112 and 113, of Part 2, Opaheke suburbs, Maketu settlement, comprising 7-5 acres, with a capital value et unimproved value of £1035 and improvements £350. Appellant's grounds for objection was that since last valuation the land had not increased in value. Six years ago f he capital value was £995 The raason appellant gave for his land not increasing in value was because he could not gain access to it. He pointed out that a bridge erected some three or • four years ago was now under water, and was unsafe for vehicular traffic. Furthermore, the bridge was only eight feet wide and he could only get a nine feet drill across. The consequences were that he could not cultivate the land, but could only use it for grazing purposes and even the cattle would not go across the bridge, and in order to get them over they had to be roped. He claimed the property had not increased one penny in value, but contended that if a bridge was erected the value would be enhanced.

To Mr Morgan : Fifty-five acres of land were affected by the bridge. He resided on a 20 acre section. Even if the bridge was there he could not say to what extent the land would increase in value.

To Mr Wily: He had had the land for a long time and it had been of no advantoge to him. In fact, he had lost money. Tie was a single man and had nephews whom he intended to leaye the farm to. For that reason it was not for sale, although ho had offered it to Mr Morgan for £IOOO. Tho value of the land depended on the County Council.

Mr Morgan said he had put a fair value on the land. Appellant's only grievance as fas as he could see was that the County Council would not give him a bridge. He pointed out that other land in the vicinity of about the same quality was valued higher. If he was the owner of the land he would erect a temporary bridge out of his own pocket, but would not let the land depreciate in value. The place was very easily worth what he put on it, and as an improved farm it was worth £3O an acre. As far as he could see, appellant had submitted no evidence showing that the valuation was wrong. The Assessors thought there was room for a slight reduction and the capital value was reduced by £BS to £IBOO awVtho unimproved value to £950. •O-'Kl'lf \. I.OVRY Tne owner and occupier of lots 92, •'l, '•<>, "\ ]:>\ to l'» 6of .'' Opaheke euburbs Mr J" u eph A. Lowry) of Bombay whose farm of 2" acres was valued at «:1225, ami the value of iho improvements at £92', said his grounds for objc.tion were "hat the iiniinpr.-v"! v?.!uc was rr.ueh too ::igh, md .!;.:' i' :houl I be onbi'To'i. He :.':v.t il.jectto the capi tal vain■■ a'. :1: but considered tha! tlio valuer had not put enough in for improvements, .md that the unimproved v iluo was out of the (question, lie asses'ied his improvements as follows: buildirgs £BSO, fencing £l5O, grassing £ 100. Total £I4OO, and the t'fiiniproyed value at £7oo To Air W'iy • The farm wassituated on the south eastern side of the Rorulsi; Hill, and about 1A miles fn.iii he threat Si'H.'h Koad. The land w, - originally ail in bush, but ' i laid i •.', •»;■ i rod : t:ill. To Mr Allan : I'he main buildingwere ei (■• ted about seven years ago. In Mr Wil\ : The <>rhen> had been erected since. To Mr Morgan : Lie based his values on present day prices. Mr Morgan eaid ho had based his values on the war prices He did not consider it a safe proposition to value on present day prices, because thev were liable to drop, and it was no! «afo f»r the purpose of lending mi way Tii Mr Morgan: He had bought come land recently when it was in i-riiss and weeds, but had since cleared it up, ploughed and cultivated it Mr Morgan : What price did you piv fi.l it Appellant: £45 an acre.

Mr Morgan: How many acres woro there ?

Appellant: 10 acres. It is the most valuable land I have, much better than where the house is.

To Mr Wily: He would sell the place at £3O an acre, and at this price a man could get a living off it. He thought that land was selling for more than it was really worth. The reason he purchased the 10 acres at ?uch a price was because it had a good water supply, which was useful to water an adjoining section.

To the President: He bought the land eight years ago at £ls 5s an acre. He did not want to gain anything at all, but wanted £7OO transferred from the unimproved value ti the improvements. Mr Morgan said the buildings were good, and worth more than he had put on them; but he had valued them on a pre-war basis. The £45 an acre land was worth more than some of the other. He would offer no objection to a rise in the improvements, but thought it should be added to the capital value. If the place was offered for sale at £4O an acre, it would sell like the proverbial hot cakes.

Mr Wily thought there was room for a moderate transfer, of £125, at the rate of 30s per acre. Mr Allan thought it better to let it stand.

The President agreed, and the valuation was sustained. MCLEAN'S sub-division.

Lots 21 to 24 of 36 of part 15, McLean's sub-division, toaungatawhiri parish, consisting of 1 rood 8 perches, with a capital value of £l2, and unimproved value of a like amount, and owned by the Nathan estate, was the next.

Mr Morgan said he had papers from the owners, and agreed to have the values reduced to £9.

Mr Wily said he understood that the estate was willing to sell back to the Department for what they originally gave—3os per section. Mr Morgan's suggestion, that it he reduced to £9, was allowed. J'OXEXO OBJECTOR. Mr A. J. Coombe of Razorback, Fokeno, owner and occupier of Lots 1 and 2, part 3, of Sections 1« to 21 and 51a, Maungatawhiri parish, comprising 179 acres and 29 perches, tho capital value of which was £3,755, with an unimproved value of £2,505, and improvements to the value of £1,250, applied to have the capital value increased to £4,000. Mr Wiln pointed out to appellant that an increase in value depended upon the accessibility and nearness to market. Appellant stated that .he had spent a great deal of money in ridding the place of stone, and making it plowable. He had cleared nearly twelve acres of stone during the last six months, and had removed about 400 yards of spawls, for which he found a market at 5s 3d a yard. Mr Wily considered this cheap, as local bodies had to pay higher for spawls. Continuing, witness said he had cleared for acres at a cost of £l2 5s per acre. He did not keep a tally of what the remainder cost, but it worked out at something like the above amount. To the President: A portion of the land was for sale, and he was hoping to get £36 an acre for it, including tho house. Mr Morgan said he considered the value a fair one. It was a very difficult property. In answer to the President, appellant said he had not compiled figures to submit to the Court. The President said that when a man came to the Court he should como prepared with something to support his objection. The valuation was sustained.