THE LEVELS VALUATION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2150, 10 February 1880, Page 2

THE LEVELS VALUATION.

The following is the opinion submitted by Messrs White and Jameson, solicitors, rc the Levels Uoad District valuation: — W. C. Bcswick, Esq., Chairman, Levels Load Board, Timarn. Dear Sir, Be Valuation List, 1330.

As requested I>y you we now write in order that you may have embodied herein what we advised the Clerk to the Board, Mr Harnett, to do considering the unsatisfactory state of the valuation list. We were informed—1. That the valuation list was most incomplete, and that many names of! owners and occupiers of land had been omitted from it altogether. 2. That a large number of properties had been underrated. d. That at same time a large proportion of the properties were rated at such amounts as satislied the Board. And we were asked — 1. Whether the Board could obtain a new valuation list altogether, and shelve that made by, wc believe, W. Macdonald. 3. If not, what steps the} r could take to effect a rectification by the list in existence. By reference to “ The Public Works Act, 1876,” sec. 14, it will be seen “That “the local body may by their Chairman “ Clerk, or other ollicer appointed by “ them, in writing, for that purpose "object to any particular valuation, or “ matter inserted in or omitted from such “list.” Sec. 19. Enquires notice to be given to those parlies other than the objector who ma3 r be interested, if the objection as to entry in or omission from the list, affect such person. We advised that the local body should exercise the power given to them by section 14, and serve the notices required by 10 and 19, which,we presume, has been done by the clerk in due form. Under sec. 27, the Assessment Court has full power to make all the alteration required ; by alteration, insertion, or erasure of any matter objected to in due form. It is true that the Board has power to object to the whole valuation list, (sec. 18), but it has only power to do on one or other of two grounds, viz., “ That the rateable value of the properties therein named is greater, or less, than in the said list set forth.” (Schedule o.) This course seems to us objectionable for two reasons : 1. That the Board as a fact did not object to all the valuations, but only to a portion of them, and that the smaller proportion of the propeities valued; and 2 that if such a wholesale objection was made, those persons who were rated at a value which they considered a proper one, could have objected to any alteration, aud if the valuation as made had been sustained, the Board ran every risk of being mulcted in cxpemesin each case where the owner or occupier was successful in maintaining the propriety of the list. Seeing that the list was a very large one, wc did not think that the Board should be placed in a position which might have entailed very serious expense. The Court lias full power to award costs, aud very probably would consider that the Board, by forcing the individual ratepayers to maintain their position, had granted the cost, and had gone into the matter without a due regard to any allowance of expenses which might be maintained against them. If the List were bad in itself— i.c.' if no Valuation List had been

made, the Court has power to appoint valuers; but it must be proved to the Court that no List has been made. The Board was not in a position to do this, at least no inherent objection to the List was submitted to us. Under these circumstances we advised in the manner we have stated, and wc see no reason to do otherwise than adhere to the advice given. Whitk and Jamksox.