ASSESSMENT COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 195, 19 June 1903, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

A srrriro cf the Aes'S.'mnk dourly consisting of Mr K. L. Stanford, S.M , (chairman), Ewen A, Campbell (Wanganui), and Richard Price (Taranaki), assets irs, was held at the Courthouse on Thursday. Mr G. F. 0. Campbell appaared on behalf of tha Valuer-General, and with him Mr 8. Hill, local Government valuer. I Obj actions were then taken.

HENUI ROAD BOARD. A number of names were called, but' the obj actors did not appear, and the objections lapsed. i . ELLIOTT ROAD DISTRICT. H. Okey objected to the valuation placed on a section of his s.tuated in the Elliott Road District. The valuation should bi nude up:m the section as a p.rt of the Elliott District, as there was no roid to it and if be (the j objector) did not own the front sections facing the Frankley Road, the value of the sections would be depreciated. To Mr E. A. Campbell: Acvss was through the front suctions. They all formed one farm. The marketable value of the section would be about ,£8 or £9 per acre. A road shown on the plans had never been npaned, and a deviation cut the road off S3 that there was no access to it from the Elliott Roid.

Mr Campbell said Mr Okey'g farm was in two road districts and two valuations had bc-eu made. In reply to Mr Campbell the ol jeotor said a fair value of the whole farm would be £l2 an acre.

Supposing you were putting the section in the market- would you ba prepired to accept £437 for it ? —lt is not in tha market, and 1 think it unfair to ask ma such a question. j Mr Campbell said that in that case hj would not pr?ts the question. S. Hill, Government Valuer, said he assessed the capital value of tha section in question at ill and the uoircproved Vilue' at £B. Tin value of improvements tnd not been increased. This soction was h»rd'y as good 'is a farm j near by, which was told at £l4 or £lB ■ par acre. '

To Mr Okey: Witness had notvisi'ed the section, but had not increased the value of improv me'jts, He hid increased the capital value, Mr Okey contended ihita fiir valuation could not bi nude unless the Vdlu r vi.i'ed and insprcted the property.

Mr Campbell siid it wis not necessary. Mr H' ! l had known tha place f r yeuv, and it was ab3o'utely unfair to character ise this as an offbe valuation.

The Court said 'hit where the question of improvements was concer ed a personal iuspeoion should be nude, but. »h3ro it was s ; mp'y a miter of improved values, this was There wai a fundim.ntal difference between the two. The would sustain the valuation.

FRANKLE? ROAD DI3TMICT, ■Hal Qoodace oVj-o'ed to bis va'u«tioi. H-d boughs it at £2l, and a short time ago bid offirei it at £4O ft' dit was refused. He saw no raison whatever for the value bring jumped up from £259 to £615. To Mr Oampball: My pnparty has two froatog s, one being on a side line. I did cut up my land for sile but did not proceed with it. The pla-i p-o----duced is the plan of sila. T.ia' was seven or eigh'> years ago, in 1893. It had good buiUiug ait j s. Mr Oimpbell: Your house is a very picturesque one. Mr Goodacro : Thank you. i

To Mr Campbell: lam not wanting to sell. Consider £3O to £4O an aore would be a goid prica. lam not obj c'ing tj a gjol pried but to the excessive value. €1299 might be a fiir total value if I wanted to sill, bnt I do not want to do so, and it would put me to vary gre it inconvenience to do so.

Mr S. Hill, sworn, sail, in reply to Mr Campbell: The unimprovjd v,tlue is put at £6O ai acre. (He gave evidence of recen 1 ; s.l s.) S)me of these p'aees ara further from town than objector's. Mr Goodacre's property is far away oetter thin the oihera; there are no better bu lding sites than Mr. Goodacre'?, and his house is one of the best in the dUtric.; a seo'ion of 103 acres backing on to the sections quoted ha J just been sold for £IO,OOO. Considering my value too low by at least 25 per cot. Mary Inngman's land is not nearly so j valuible as Mr. Goodacre's. Mr. Watson's land is further away and is nos obj ct' d to. To Mr. Goodacre: The quality of ths land only affacts it for agricultural purposes. Mrs. Ward's property is on a side roaj, and there is fully £3O an acre difference between them. Mr. Watson's is not so good for building sites as yours. Watson is valued at £4l an acre. Ward's at £4O an acre. The plan put in by Mr. Gjodacre shows the prices put on the sections at the time.

Mr Goodacre said the prices wtre at pjr acre not pw section. Mr Campbell referred to the sale of Vtale's section.

The Court did not think thoy could consider this.

Mr Campbell submitted they must. It web ne tr ol>j ctor's, a 1 irger area, not such good building site?, and ia every way a fair thing to q'Wto; but, speaking generally, the sales lately had been so frequent, and the prices so well-knowD, that thsy had not thought it necessary to quote them. Valuation reduced to .£SO pr acie unimproved value. In reply to Mr Campbell, the Court said they did not reduce the capital vilue, the reduction on the unimproved value would be added to the value of the improvements, as the Court thought they were valued too low. j Mr Goodacre s.roDgly protested against this, on the ground thit there was no evidence before the Court re- ] garding the improvements, j The Court was of opinian that the' oipital value was too low, and would not allow it. j (Left Sitting.)