ASSESSMENT COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9118, 10 April 1908, Page 5

ASSESSMENT COURT.

MARTON. A sitting ofithe Assessment Court was held yesterday before Mr R. L. Stanford, S.M.J. Harris & Son objected to the separate valuation of their offices occupied by themselves and Harris and Ladley, solicitors. Formerly it had been rated as one property and now the building had been assessed separately. The offices were under one roof and used by both firms. The Borough Valuer said the building adjoining Harris & Sous, laud agency office, had been purchased and these-premises were now occupied by Harris & Ladley, solicitors. There was a dividing wall and a separate assessment was therefore made. The rental value of the solicitor’s office was fixed at £26 and to show that this was a fair assessment a list of rents paid for other offices was put in, which in most cases exceeded the rate of 10s now assessed. The valuation was sustained.

H. O. Ladley objected to a separate valuation of his land. He did not wish to object to the valuation of his house. When he purchased the property the certificate of title gave the area as one. The back section was not worth £lO on account of a large open drain. —The valuation w T as sustained.

W. W. Hedges objected to the valuation of 3 jfacres next his house at £6 an acre rentalyalue. Property near his place—Bo acres —had been assessed at £7B and another place containing 88 acres was valued at £4O. He urged that there should he a uniform valuation.

The Borough Valuer said the objector’s property was next to Pukepapa Railway Station and was being used for residental,sites. The valuation of other properties referred to was for grazing land. A. H. Sutcliffe gave [evidence in support of the assessment. The valuation was sustained. His Worship remarked that it was desirable that valuations should be worked on a more uniform basis. F. O. Wilson objected to the valuation of the house owned and occupied by A. H. Knigge, borough valuer. This was assessed at £29. He said the property was put in the market for sale, and that Mr!Knigge was asking £750 for it. Now Mr Knigge had valued his (Mr Wilson[s) place for £24 which he would sell for £350. If Mr Knigge’s house was worth £750 his valuation should be assessed accordingly (£37 10s) or the valuation on his (Mr Wilson’s) own house should he reduced. Mr Knigge first put a [valuation of £2B on his own property and he would call evidence to show that it had since been altered to £29.

H. O. Ladley deposed that in a conversation with Mr Knigge he mentioned his assessment was put down at £2B and that he would not accept £7OO for his house, but wanted £750. Witness gave £405 for his house and property was more valuable in Wellington road where Mr Knigge lived. seen the valuation roll on 15th February and noticed Mr Knigge’s valuation was £2B and was written in ink. It was now £29. He would swear it was not written in pencil. W. W. Hedges said he had also inspected, the roll and noticed that Mr Knigge’s valuation had since been altered from £2B to £29.

Mr Knigge: “I have power to alter the valuation roll if necessary. Mr Wilson: “Not after the loth of February. ’ ’ Mr Knigge: I made the alteration before the 15th . My first assessments were written with a pencil. Mr Wilson: “You have heard two witnesses swear ‘the alteration was made after 15th February.' Will you deny it? Mr Knigge: Yes. The Magistrate: What date did you alter it? Mr Knigge: Before the 15th. I will sell my house for £6OO cash. Mr Wilson: Then it is quite clear vour valuation should be assessed at £3O. HiS'iWorship increased the valuation to £3O.

F. O. Wilson’s objections were then taken in respect to his own property valued at £24. His Worship reduced the valuation to £2l. R. J. Walters objected to the valuation of £2O on a shop adjoining his hotel. This place had previously been included in the valuation of the hotel assessed at £295. The hotel had again been assessed for a simliar sum and the shop at £2O. The Borough Valuer said the shop had evidently been omitted from previous valuations. Mr Collins for the objection argued that it should be included in the hotel assessment.

His Worship reduced the valuation to £l. August Poppe objected to the valuation at £B6 on his property on Goebel’s line. Mr Ladley appeared for the objector and after the evidence of several witnesses the assessment was reduced to £75. The objections lodged by E. Read were withdrawn.