ASSESSMENT COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 262, 3 April 1914, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

BOROUGH VALUATIONS. ) A sitting of the Assessment Court for the hearing -of objections to the recent borough .valuations was held at New ■ Plymouth yesterday, before Mr A. Crooke, S.M. Messrs. F. P. Corkill (for the borough) and 1). McAllum (for the Valuation Department) were the assessors. Messrs. C. W. Govett and Ronald Quilliam appeared on behalf of the Borough Council. REDUCED BY AGREEMENT. ] The first cases heard were those in which tlie valuation had been reduced by agreement, subject to the consent of 1 the assessors. They were as follow: — William Allen, from £52 to £4B. A. and A. H. Amburv. from £95 to £9O. I Catholic Church Trustees, from £SO • to £35; £76 to £7O. |> Christopher Carter, from £4O to £42. 1 Eliza Avery, from £9O to 87. William Jno. Chancy, from £IOO to £BO. R. Colson, £B9 to £72. Hislop Barnitt, from £OO to £SO. Ernest Cunningham, from £72 to £O2; Christopher Bond, from £33 to £3O. Clarice Allen Douglas, from £7l to £67. W. P. Brooking, from £39 to £3B; fO'O ,to £64; £46 to £4l. Emma Douglas, from £l4B to £l4l. James Bruce, from £7 to £5. Albert H. Evans, from £23 to £2l. Amandabel Bullet, from £27 to £22. C. H. Burgess, from £l2 to £7. John Buttimore. from £76 to £6O. B. J. Carfchew, from £7O to £B2. New Plvmouth Harbor Board (Kawau Park Reserve)— Sections (1) £l4O to £43, (2) £SO to £45; (3) £SO to £46; (4) £47 to £42; (0 and 7) £IOO to £B3; (9) £9O to £08; (11) £sl to £43; (16) £24 to £2l; (18) £24 to £2l; 120) £24 to £2l; (22) £24 to £2l; (24) £24 to £2l. J Objections to ten other sections in this ] reserve were withdrawn. I Mount Elliot Reserve —Sections (1) > £45 to £27; (2) £35 to £22; (3) £3O to £22; (4) £3B to £22; (5) £39 to £23; (6) £3B to £22; (7) £45 to £2B; (8) £79 to £53; (10) £95 to £80; (12) £6O to £SO; (13) £65 to £SO; (18) £sl to £45; (19) £56 to £52; (20) £BO to £67; (27) £3O to £26; (28) £2B to £2l; "(29) £24 to £22; (43) £49 to £3B; (44) £3B to £33. James A. Hawker, from £2O to £lB. Rose E. Healy, from £69 to £6O. D. Hutchen, from £B2 to £69. Mark Johnson, from £76 to £7O. Michael Jones, from £9 to £l. Dr. H. A. McCleland, £B3 to £75. Janes McGahey, from £ls to £l3. H. J. Moverley, from £6B to £6O. A. H. Palmer, from £BO to £BO. : Richard Ching's estate. £43 to £4O. Clarence S. Rennell, from £57 to £49. Emmeline Roy, from £124 to £lls. A. E. Sykes, from £l7 to £l4. W. I. Thomason, from £2B to £26. Henry Weston, from £232 to £200; f3O to £25. T. S. Weston's estate, from £l3B to £132. R. G. Whetter, from £49 to £45; £ls to £l2. Isabella Brewster, from £4l to £3O. Cunningham and Brooking, from £ll7 to £IOB. Gerge Hale, from £330 to £240. E. B. Kyncdon. from £S4 t-i £73. John Lashhrook, from £92 to £B2. Walter Little, from £153 to £141; £392 to £359. James C. Morey, £B9 to £62. CONTESTED CASES. Bella Loveridge, the authorised agent of 10. Loveridge, appeared on behalf of his objection to the valuation of £56 on sections 241 and 267, New Plymouth. She said the valuation, was t«o hiirh. The capital, value would be about £700.' Mr Govett explained that while the . three houses on the property were onlv ' worth £llO, the neighborhood was good and the capital value of the whole was £llOO. It was valued for rates at £SO last vear.

Witness said the obiector lived in one house and let the other two at 9a per week each. There was a mortgage of £,TO on the property. She tailed no evidence.

Hickman F. Russell, Covcrnment Valuer, gave detailed evidence in support of his valuation. The capital value of the land—3 roods—and the houses was £ll3O. The unimproved value was £IOOO. The land fronted Devon Street, Mount Edgecumbe Street and Powderham Street. A section immediately opposite was sold in December last for £OSO. Its area was; 2 roods. 2.8 oerches. Since then two parts of this, containing one-eighth of an acre each, were sold for £2">o each. This land, was in several ways inferior to the land in question. '

The valuation was sustained. .Tames Ciuldv Davies appeared in support of his objection to the valuation of £lO for sections in Oaine Street. He stated that he was paving the Education Board £4 os «cr year for the land, which was now valued at £lO. He did not remember his valuation last year, but had made no objection to it because he was associated with Mr .Mills in valugi" certain portions of film uormii'h. and therefore considered it would have been had form to object to Mr Mills' valuation. His "Tievanee wis that he was being rated on leasehold land at n higher rate than was compatible with its value as shown In- the. rent lie paid; Mr Russell stated that the valuation was not excessive in comparison with sales of neighboring land. The valuation was upheld, hut was divided into two separate assessments of £lB and £l.

William Nichnlls appeared in support of his objection to the valuation ( ,f £B4O for his wife's property in Devon Street. The pronertv was valued at £7OO last year, and he considered the subsequent rise unwarranted. Mr Russell ufnosed thai, the section li:ul a frontage of 84ft. The improvemeats were of small value, and the freehold was valued at £B4O. The total capita! value was £843. This; was consistent with neighboring values. The annual value was rcrtuewl to £:i.i, on a capital value assessed at £7OO.

(ieorgc Francis Rohiinon objected to the valuation of his property For rat'ws purposes, not to the capital'-value. The capital value was, he said, a fair one. but the calculation of the annual value at not less than 5 per cent, on the capital value was unfair, as it ininosed rates far above the renting value of the properly to the owners. The. rates were exorbitant, and nothing was done to the access to his land. Thev got no value for the rates. TTe had objected to this, •hoping that the Court might be one of cquitv, and so give him a. remedy.

T'lici assessors upheld the valuation.as thev bad no nower to enter into the question of equity. This concluded the business, there being no siimc-anuier- of the obiectors in several other cases in whita objection* liad been filed.

In discussing the "iicstion of costs. Mr fiovett said he had been instructed that in these cases the borough would not apply for costs, but it must be understood that ihis constituted no pr«(.ci'ent.