TOWN BOARD ASSESSMENT APPEAL CASES.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 11, 25 June 1864, Page 3

TOWN BOARD ASSESSMENT APPEAL CASES.

: ?,The first casewasthat'ofMr.TheopliilusHeale, wh'oi owned property as fpUow'sTon winch he appealed against thea3sess'ed : valuati6h as being ex■'cessive-^ 1 --"'''-^"'''' ■•'■■•"'' ; '"' ; - ■ ■''"■■•■■ ' ■■•■■»■•■■■ - •■-■ ■

The amount of the above valuation is £614, and the rate per pound charged is Is. 6d. /■■■:■: Mx. Macdcpnald appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the Town Board was represented by ■ Mr! J^eston.r, ...... / : Mr. Western stated to the Bench that the point . at issue was the mere value of the sections assessed. He! then called— , ; j fMrl Hi B. Morikman, one of the valuators appointed by the Town Board, in conjunction with Mr. gutter, in Qcboberlast, who deposed to 'the 1 valuation- set down against the sections as being tlie fair value at the time whon said valuation was made. Gross-examined. — The various sections have decreassd in value very much since that time. ..{Witness then went.over thevarious items, taking thair market rvalue as at April last.) ,„!■ Re-examined.— -J determine the value of proerty , : from no fixed principle, but solely on my own experience and judgment as a valuator. Mr. Seandrett, a member- of the Town Board, produced the assessment book. The valuation of the assessors was altered by ths Town Board in February last. The depreciatiou in the value of property induced them to make this reduction. . We reduced the value by 33 per cent, throughout the town, with the exception of Dee and Tay streets, for which there was no fixed principle of reduction. Cross-examined. — The assessment value of Section 22, 810ck IV, of the assessors, was raised by the Board to £375, as they considered the valuation under the mark. In February it was again reduced by tlie Board to its original assessed value (£250). Mr. 11. Jaggers, another member of the Town Board, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. This was all the evidence t-aken, after which, Mr. Weston addressed the Bench on behalf of the Board, arguing that as the valuation of the assessors applied for the whole year from November, 1863, to November, 1864, no subsequent | depreciation of value of the property could interj fere with the assessment then made. The Town ! Board had certainly reduced the valuations of the assessors very considerably, but this was clearly an act of grace on their part, in consideration of such depreciation in value, and from the exercise of their vested powers to make such alteration. Mr. Macdonald, for the appellant, submitted that the Act meant that assessment could only be charged on lands actually, or which could be, let. and the Board must prove this to be the case in order to' entitle them to recover. He further contended that the time at which notice of the aseessment was made to the proprietors must be held as the time when the value of the property ought to be fixed. The valuation, on that understanding, would fall to be taken about Bth April last. • The Magistrates now retired to consider their j verdict, and after about an hour's consultation, returned and declared judgment as follows : — Mr. Price said they had taken into consideration, in arriving at their verdict, the difference of the valuations laid down on certain principles. Regarding the first, Sec. 22, Block 4, which had been assessed at £250, they had assumed the selling value of- the property at April, as stated by Mr. Monkman, at £450, and the annual value they had fixed at 15 per cent., or £67 10., the rate per pound being Is. 6d. On the other sections, where no buildings were erected, and which were chiefly in the swaftnp, they had fixed the annual .value at ,10 per cent, on the upset price "of the sections, even where the lands were not presently let. FEB<3-TTS AND HEWITT V. FBAZEB AND ANOTHEB. Liction to recover £173 (reduced to £100), on a guoiitum merait, for work and labor done. The defence; was — "not indebted." = TV. -FRAZER AND. BI3SS. T. FERGUS AND ,-; .";' ■■"■ ■:.: 4 . ANOTHER. ■ ; Action to recover £108 (reduced to £100), for, damage sustained in consequence of non-fulfilment of contract. „ .-, The above; two cases ,were tried conjointly, \yy, consent, of. fche^ parties. ;.... I The plaintiffs in the first action contended that they had fully implemented their contract for : cutting : and .the. logs to the saw-milLof defendants ..;; and the plaintiffs in the second action sued for damages, in; consequence of loss of . time, in .consequence of logs : npt;beingproperly,delivered, ' and for logs not being- cut according to contract, and for blocking up the r0ad5.. ,.;.; : , ;..!.<'• ; , ".Evidence ■vya3:;adduped[ ,on . both sides at /cbxisidjerabley li length., . , The; ; Bench, >_found the plaintiffs in Jthc.H .first ; action,- on grounds of equity, entitled to recover for the price of 173 : logs;jat. 3s/, or £25 19s., 1 jand : gave judgment ! in ! favor, of plaintiffs in second case likewise. ■ ;.i i -.'ioJ ..f .i )..'■:. ,<y--'>i, '/.o_in> :■::,:'.■: ..- : ... Hoskins v. Marter and- Hayg-arth. — Claim for £5,10.;;. No, appearance, of defendants. -/Verdict ,fpr amount in lavor..of;p&intiffj i withicostß. V,j ,(3y. AiJiWppD-r V., fM^aTER;^AND ; HAyGARTS.-r, ;TKis case was settled out of court. i; • i ■] Jt; being now. nearly, five;, o'clock^ the Court : adjourned. .J : - ■■.':< ■,*■'.. ■■• ■'.<' 'u-. •■■ (.■■,:■> -h

; '" ? -:,■'(' " •■!''. '••! „-.'.' '-. -.' ■■]-■' -V. ' ■•'■' : /' ■■■•'"•'. Pbidat, 24KE/JsviB v 1864i. , ; \ '■' (Before Mi Price, Esq., R.M.) 7 iTimo^fhy Gallan.^as. charged | with..tho;thoft. of f a bottle of gin, at the Elbow, on the 2<3th_inßtan't. iPrisonfir ipled guilty^ but applied for,a; mitigation ofi sentence, on the-ground that , he, w,as .under the inkuen,oe; of : liquor at the /time/ )The jGommiseioner of! Police reported that the ...prisoner liadtfbiwierito borne a good character. Ho was sentenced to 14 fanprisonmentir) •--^ ; r ,v ;,'-:.,• ; T 1 ; , ' ".CIVIIi.CApEB^ ' V r , '.',-. , ... ..■•„.. V ' | Da JAtnc'Tr'M^NrNff'AKD •Whitton:' 1 " '*■ This was a, remanded case for breach of contrtcl regarding the price of railway sleepors.

Mr. Maedonaldfor defendants, and, Mr. Button for plaintiff.. -' r . Mrs. Sharley. gave evidence as to the price of the cartage of the sleepers'. 1 She was present when the price was settled. Cross-examined by Mr.^Button. — I was not present the whole time tho parties. were, making the contract. * ' ° : '-'- , The Bench considered plaintiff entitled to the three days' expenses for the time during which the , defeidants told Mr.^ De( Jaux ;that his ; services 'would no longer be required. This would be £s , per day, as plaintiff had made out, and expenses. ■'■ Several other cases were adjourned. '. The Court then rose. >' ' >'■'"*

'iSeet. 22 Block 4 Assess. Val. £200 -■■ ■•■„' -IS-!)..:: '-' : » 16 ".;.:..;»•■•• r " !: »' •••'« ■ ; 23< P-W : 6 ,-, 21 ..:.•-. -■•■' ,V'-^-27i ! „ 7 ,;■' 24 ....:. „' 20 < V 6-»::ir i »%»to-'...:.^ ''■'■<*■■'■ -■ -14' „ 6 -....-" „ 26 „ 14 j . „ .v7://.i:;uj» jgS.^.v.- ::/„■ .•■ - -'■'•-„. 17 „ 26 „ 14 s'- : 'U J8..v. ;-.-.- ri,/::26,.:.>.,... • , „; : : -l4 ; '\| 5 „ 27 „ 17 '.'■■" , l 7 ...v.; ;;:•!•„; 27, v.Vm.;..- », .• - 16^ „ 27 r „ 17 „: 21 ...... „ 27,....: „ 23 ; W 1 ....:. „ 37 ...... „ 14 • W %...„. „ 37, „ 10 ■'„ { i J ..:;:. >„ 37 ...... „ 10 „ W ,«. 41 ...... . „ 10 '••■■• gl9 ■:.■::.•: » 41 ...;.. „ 10 ■■■-■g 20 „ 41 ...... „ 10 -"■'C 3 „ 42 „ 10 •" w '12 •:;... J „■ 44 „ 14 "i,; 13 * 44 „ 10 » '\; 14 , „ 44 „ 10 „44 „ 10 ' i,, 2 , 57 „ 17 , 4 „ 66 ...... „ 20