Assessment Court. TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 360, 17 April 1889, Page 2

Assessment Court. TE AROHA.

TUESDAY, APRIL 16th, 1889. (Before 11. W. Northoroft, Esq., Judge). The Assessment Court for the Te Aroha Town Distiict, for the homing of objections to the Annual Valuation List, under the Ruling- Act of 1876, opened at noon. The following objections were considered :—: — I Mary Jane Stanley applied to have her name substituted for that of her husband, James Stanley, with respect to residence site No. 9, Block 35. Granted. Henry Brooks objected to his name appearing as occupier of a residence si to, owned by M. Botehin, he being only a ! weekly tenant, Ordered that the name of M. Rotchm be substituted. llobett Harris ajipliccl to have his n-uno inaciiod .is Chairman of directors, in connection with tho Te Aroha Public Hall Co. Mr Pavitt (the valuer) objected to the proposed alteration. His Worship said he considered the the application a reasonable one, but Mr Ilnriis not being present to sustain it, and the Valuer objecting, no alteration would be made. Arthur A. Smith, oF the Hot Springs llut.l, objected a? follows : (1) That Edward Gallagher, who. r o name appears in the said List as occupier of part of Sections 3 and 4 of Block 2(5. of the rateable value of £32, ia not entitled to be inserted in the said List, because if should ; be included in No. 198 of same List, the Hot Springs Hotel, md be valued together with same. (2) That, the valuaiion of £150 pl.ieod on the Hot Springs Hotel is sufficient for tho whole, and icquesting the Court to reduce the valuation to £150. Mr Smith having been sworn, Hia Worship asked him what, ivnf he paid. Mr Smith objected to an r .weii"g this question. His Worship s iid tie question ! was a very fair one, soeinr: he n^seilod |he w.ts over valued. The Valuer (Mr Tin ift), hovro\er, snid he would not pi ess the question. His Worship next ask<Mi Mr Smith whnt rent \>i> received foi his ?tal !es from Mr G.illiighpr. This j question Mr Smith nKo objected to 5 mm^wo'". In i»'|)ly to fuither questions \ by Ili-s Worphi[< Jtlv Smith s.iid theie i wa^ no written at, r i<viui'ut betv/ppn liim I and Gillagher, but h" <?uju osod lie could I give hitti n wrek's notice. Aft iJ r { some further questions had bnen nut, J His Worship told witness he must < ifcher j disclose the rent he paid and received, or else the valuation would be sustained. Witness said he objected to giving the information asked for. Valuation sustained. J. Ilott objected (1) that he was not the occupier of Naiive tcsetye, six acres; (2) that his name should appear as occupier of sections 19 and 20, Lipsey's Block, instead of John Allen, who had no lease of the ptoperty ; (3) that the valuation £27, s^, on his j sections 21 and 22, Li prey's Block, was I too low. Ordered (1) that the name of F. Lipsey be substituted with respect to native leseive ; (2) that the name of J. Ilott be substituted for that of John Allen ; (3) that the valuation be increased to £30.