ASSESSMENT COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 104, 18 May 1901, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

A siti'lNo of the Assessment Court was h. Id on Friday bifore Mr. R. L. Stanford, S.M, and Messrs. E. Price and E. A. Campbell to hear objections npai'ist Viluilions made in the ccun'y of Taranaki.

Mr. Robert Hill objected to the valuation placed upon his holding spc'iors 43 ar.d 44, block 10, Esraont Village, of 19 an acre, or 11080, on t ; e tronrd tha' it was excessive as compared with the values placed on adjoining p'operties. Aieiphbouv'sland was valued at 17 an acre, and he hud tbrei families living on the section, 140 acres.

To Mr. Compbtll, Deputy ValuerGerernl : Would Fell the property et 110 an acre. Did not think 19 was a f.ir value. The improvements were valu°d at 1660. He object'd to the unimproved value of 13 10s pliced on the property. His piirc'pal objection was that the valuations were ur.fair ; all shou'd have been treated alike, H' had three mi'es of a bad roid to travil to get to bis sec'ioo, which was broken [land.

Mr. S. Hill, valuer for Taranaki, was called, and explored the bans on which the vahntioos of the locality were made. He quoted salps which had takon place of neighbouring properties at similar pricf s to his values. The capital valuation was '.educed by 1120. Mr. T. M l's object d to the valuation placed up in siction 15, block VI., Education Reserve, on Egmont-ioad, of 110 an acre on 180 acres. To the Cuurt: He did not think the improvements were worn 1625; they might bs worth 1400. He would take that sum. There was not more than half the bush down. He had been on the section three years. It wbs nearly a'l fence!. There was a five-roomed lem-to house, a small milking died end a d*i»y for the separator. He ran about 100 large stock on the property. To Mr. Campbell : Did not piy anything for improvements whfn ha on the s-c'ion. Mr. McDowell pu u witness on the section. There were about 70 to 80 acres felled. He h-d ro'iyet.pu'd anything for these improvements. Mr. S. Hill, valuer, stated the section was within two *nd a-half miles of New Plymouth and hd been improved for years. He es'imnted thore were 160 acre o , and i hero was a lot of open knd which had been ploughed Mrs. Hendry, a pievious Vmnr, paid 1650 (r 1700 in order to go upon the proper uy. The valuat : on w-s su>tair>ed.

Mr. Ed. Kicg appeared in respect to the valuation of £695 place! on lv's prop rty. Sircsmakingtheobject'on he huiid the Department had made s_me arrangements to reduce. He agreed to tho valuation of £695.

Mr. llows-trcn objected to the valuation rf £6OO placed rn sceticn 21, block 6, Paritutu, confining 60 »cr.s. It was six miles from New Plymouth, He bad just bought the place at £7 110s, and it was he'd under lea c e at .£2O a year. It was coverfd in gcrie and blackberry, ard was intersected, by two gullies, Mr. S. Hill said the property was well worth the price it was vslued at. Properties in the vici'iy had been sold at eonride-ably higher vdurs.

The valuation w.is reduced £2 an ac;e.

Mr. Weitmaco t oljec el *o tho unimproved valuation of £BOO placed upon his property. Tha improvements he v:Ju?d at more than .£9OO. Tho land Wf.s iu fuoh a pos'tion that he had no outle\ otherwise the unimpruVdc value would be much ligbtr. To the Deputy Va'uer: Had the p'ac3 in the marktt, and was asking £2500; " but he hadn't got it yet!" Used the ground as a residential si'e and kept a few horse*, fctc. He would not sell at the £1703 placed upon it. Mr. S. Hill said he vajued tho whole 19 i-cres asrno lot. He believed the improvempnts were valued at too low a figure, but the unimprovei value was right. The valuation was sustained. M>\ Thorn's James objected to th« valmtion of £5 5s per aero pli-cd on section 149, block 7, Egmont, 62 acres He would be willing to take £3OO fo: the property. The capital value was then reduced from £346 to £3OO.

The same settler's objection to the valua'ion of £240 on ano L her 61 acres was sustained, and the capital valu« reduced by £4B. Mr. Stephen James objected to the valm of £247 placed on his 62 acre property. By consent of Mr. Ckmpbdl (valuer) a reduction of £SO wa« made. The same objector appeared on behalf of his wife in respect of the valuation p'aced on an adjoining proper'y.

After healing Mr. D, McAllum, deputy v.rluer, and S. Hill, tho valuation was reduced by £35. Mr. Swan objected to a valmtion of £147 placd upon 41 acr s leasi in perpetuity held by h'm, The vidua tion was reduced by £77. Mr. W. J. C'eave obj e'ed to the valmtion of £l2 an acre pi iced upon 500 acrrs h.:d by him. He did rot object to total, but thought the umiinproved va'ue was over-estimatd. It was put down at £6 10s per acre, and he valued hid improvements at £5 per acem tho land, and frjm £I2OO to £ISOO for buildings. Mr. S. Hi 1 gave evidence, and the Ounrt sustained the valuation. !

Mr. W, K. Co'lin* olvje.'t d to t, , variation of £550 placed on 50 s.cr-s held by .him ou the Henw. od Road, iThe last valuation was £4ll, ard no improvements had been mudo sine.'. The section next In low, ne-'.rtr t e m in road, had been sold at £7 or £7 10 . He did not think his prope ty wculd bring moio than that. Mr. S. Hill gave evidence, and the Ciurt reducod the valuation by £1 p-r aci". I

Mr, Wm, Billing objecled to th> capital value of £242 placed on I.is ' property of 13P acres. The improve 'ni'ii's were valued at £O2, and he tin tight should he reduced to £42. Mr. Campbell agr id, and the redo :tion was made nccording'y. Mr. Billing a'so objected to ihe v> luation of £324 plaied on 162 acres held by him. The unimproved value, £?52, wns excessive. H 0 agreed to £SO being taken oil' the unimproved value and added to value of improvements, The Oouit decided accordingly,

Mr, W. H. Ard ews objeced to thel amount :it which improvements had I ass-sue lon his S'jcb'an, viz , £156.1 Whcu tio biught t,ho section there was a boos:, on i f , • but lo had sold that. There WYIB no uleaiii g, or j,r*'iss sown on it. The capital value of .£461 on the 61 aei es to* above its sell ng value, is hj« had offered i* twelve uuntl s ago fir 17 por atre. He valued improvements at £SO.

The valuer agreed to make the capital value 1427 and improvements £SO, and the Court decided accordingly. Mrs. Jane Andrew (per Mr. \V. H. Andrew) objected to value of improvements (£568) as being tbout 1150 too much. The buildings were fooiewhut cut of lepiir. Mr. Campbell (valuer) pointed cut •hat the objector in the oiig nal objecton tent in had objected to the irap'ovpments being tco !o<v, while the witi o>s s-aid the value was placed too high. Tl e object'on was thtn dropped. Mr. Go. ltiddh ohj ctfid to thu uniirproved value placed upon bis holdii?p, viz., 13267. He did not object to the capital value of 14370 placed ill on the 437 acres. Theie wt>ro 6ome 50 to 60 acres of »a ti swamp, and a lot of the land was billy. s w-s examined at le. gth by Mr. Campbell, and Mr. S. Hill rlso gave tvidence of tho iuipro'.ements on the pro;erty.

Tie Conrt d- cided to reduce the unimproved v«lue by 1437. : O.i tro applied'ion of th* Valuation D.jfirtuient ninvkr reductions of 11 per acie on unimproved value were made in Iha cafes of Mr. S. Bakor and Mr. F. McM>hor>, the amounts of tbese reductions to be add>-d in each case to the value cf improvements. This concluded tbe business.