BOARD OF REVIEWERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2373, 23 June 1892, Page 2

BOARD OF REVIEWERS.

The Board of Reviewers for the Geraleine County met at the R.M. Court, Geraldine, on Tuesday, to consider objections to the assessment of land values in the Geraldine and Mount Peel districts. There were present—Messrs B. G. Stencher and F. R. Fhitman (Reviewers). Mr WO. Walker appeared on behalf of the Government, Mr T. Howley acted as clerk, and the assessors present were Messrs D. McDonald (Geraldine district) and Crosby (Mount Peel district.)

MOUNT FEEL. The Mount Peel objections were taken first, in the following order : No. 19 : National Mortgage & Agency. - Co.—No appearance of objectors. No. 20 : Smith, Dennistonn & Co., 5,251 a. 2r. 27p.—Mr Dennistonn stated that he agreed with the a.'se -.sor as to values, but the allowance of 10s per acre for grass lie considered was not enough. Any practical man would know that he could not put down grass at 10s per acre, for the seed very often cost J or, per acre. He had seen Mr McDonald, the Geraldine assessor, and was told that he (Mr McDonald) was allowing fit per acre for grass. His claim was for 10s per acre increase of value on 2,120 acres of grass, irrespective of age. —Mr Crosby said that the greater part of Mr Dennistoun’s grass was very good, and in a high state of cultivation, but having arranged previously that 10s per acre should only be allowed on grass, be had worked on that basis. —Mr Walker submitted that IQs per acre was a fair value to allow.—The board upheld the assessor’s valuation, Thomas Edwards : No appearance. Studholmo A Wigley ; No objection to the assessment, or ly an adjustment of sections between Mount Peel and Geraldine districts as to ownership. Charles J. Raynor, Harper A Co., John Talbot, and L. McPherson ; No appear- ( auco of objectors, .

nKII.Vt.DJNH EOAII DlSTlllO’i'. Samuel Ereadley and W, E. MacDonald : No appearance qf objectors. No. 04 ; M!. G. Orbell. Asking to have the acreage put on his property altered from 1500 to 1551. —Alteration to be made. M. 0. Orbell objected to afi amended valuation of £15,000 received by him (\lter the assgsffQv had valued property at £ll,obf!. hfr Orbell" nut understand the reason of' the amend-: ment; Ids neighbors’ properties were valued at fi’om £7 15s to £8 10s per acre, and his was put down at £lO. This was i] u fair, ns 5100 a pros ot lu s fand was yivexw bod shingle, 150 acres light shingle, and some acres swamp.—Mr D, McDonald, assessor, upheld Mr Orbell’s objection, and said ho had no idea why the amendmoiit had boon made. —Mi; Tpmpian, sworn, said he had a thorough knowledge of the property in question, having valued it at one time for the Property Tam There wore about 150 acres of poor land, worth 80s an acre at the outside, and 2UQ

acres shingle land, which, taken in connection with land about it, would be jP worth £5 per acre; the balance, 1200 acres, was worth £8 per acre. The assessor’s valuation was a fair one, find Messrs Kelman, McLeod, and McKenzie’s land was better in every respect than Mr Orb ell’s.—Mr Walker said that from the papers it was quite evident that the £15,000 was taken as the valuation of the owner (Mr Postlethwaito), and it was hardly worth while defending a valuation of this kind when they had no evidence in support.—The board upheld the assessor’s valuation. The following objectors did not appear, and their nbyrOions were not considered : Ellen Buckley, Harper & Co., A. W. Ensor, Rev. G. Foster, Ernest Foster, J. Kennedy, McShane and Earl. No. 448 : Benjamin Cochrane objected that he had received an amended notice of valuation of £ISOO after the assessor had valued his land at £IOBO. Mr McDonald, the assessor, said his valuation of £IOBO was a fair one, and that ho know nothing of the second valuation. —The assessor’s valuation was taken as correct. Harman & Stevens : No appearance of objectors. Mr Kelland: Reduction of acreage from 500 to 400 acres reduction of actual value accordingly.—Granted. Mayor and Borough Council of Christchurch : £2OO more to be added to valuation of improvements and deducted from actual valuation. —Granted. Daniel KcKay : Reduction of acreage from 100 to 102 acres—Granted. GERALDINE TOWN DISTRICT. Mr C. E. Sherratt, for W. R. Andrews : No appearance of objector. These being all the objections the board then rose. TEMUKA. The board sat at Temuka yesterday. Present —Messrs Stericker, Flatman and Dickson. There were also present Mr W. C. Walker, inspecting assessor, Mr Howley, clerk to the board, and Mr C. M. Smith, the assessor The first objections taken were those in the TEMUKA TOWN DISTRICT. S. Hewlings : Section 04 and 30, area 1 acre valuation £BOS, improvements £5, unimproved value £3OO. Mr Twomey, the lessee of the section, objected as having to pay local rates. The section was subject to floods, and competent valuers assessed it at from £l5O to £2OO. The assessor thought an error in transcription had occurred. He had it in his note book at £250. Mr Cox, the owner’s agent, had gone through the list with him. —Reduced to £2OO.

P. Coira: Area 4 perches, valuation £3OO. Mr G. Dyson appeared for objector, and asked for a reduction to £250. The property was leasehold, and shops thereon had not been let for over 8 months. The area also should he 17 perches. —Area altered to 17 perches, valuation sustained.

Comer & Larcombe : Part R.S. 2898, owner S. Hewlings, valuation £l6O, area 8 acres 1 rood 14 perches. Mr Comer stated that his firm only leased 64 acres, and produced lease.-: — Area reduced and valuation altered to £l3O. J. Beri : Part section 51, 6 perches, valuation £350. The objector claimed a reduction to £275. —Valuation upheld. S. F. Smithson : Sections 104 and 105, area 2 acres 26 perches, valuation £250. — Reduced to £IBO.

Objections were made in respect of property owned by Messrs Hayes, Rawlings, Blyth, and Darroch, but the objectors not appearing they were struck out. AROWHENUA TOWN BOARD. The objections in this township had been arranged by consent with the exception of those entered by Messrs Quinn, Prattley, and Boulter, who did not appear. Mr A. W. Gaze, representing the local board,protested against certain reductions that had been made. The original valuations made by the assessor in respect of certain sections were distinctly fair, yet in one instance he observed the valuation had been reduced by one half. It was an injustice to the local body, and to other ratepayers who consented to reasonable valuation. He considered the local body should be notified where such extensive reductions were made. The Board had no power in cases where M he valuation had been consented to by tie assessor. TEMUKA ROAD BOARD. Bank of Now Zealand Estates Company total area 2726 acres, actual valuation £23,740, improvements £6055. Mr A. M. Clark appeared for the Company, and asked for a reduction of area of 354 acres, that amount being included in the Geraldine district, which overlapped the estate.—Reduction allowed; valuation of

same accepted at £7 10s per acre. —He also drew attention to the fact that since the assessment the estate had been offered for sale upon easy terms, and the prices bid did not reach the Company’s reserves by Is Id per acre. He submitted a list of these and asked for a reduction of assessment by that amount and ten per cent. —After some consultation the total value was reduced by £IOO, about equivalent to Is Id per acre, the total unimproved valuation as reduced being £17.“70. Executors of late Mr Kay ; Area 741 acres, valuation £5187, improvements £I7OO. In this case Mr Postlethwaite appeared, and asked that the valuation be reduced to £4700, as last assessment. He was proceeding to go into the question of distinct values of separate blocks, when ik'iginal objection was put in, and assess- ' meat reduced in accordance iherewitli to sooo.' ' ' Brown, Milford ; Area 4fißa Jr 35p, valuation £5200, improvements £720. [l ! iWs caseMqector asked deduction of £■'»*, tU nation upheld. M. Lawlor : 139 acres, valuation £973, reduced by assessor by consent to £834. B]}e objector stated that ho rented 140 apres 1 rood from the North Canterbury School Commissioners at 3s (Id per acre for the first seven years and 8s for subsequent 14 years. The land was let by public tender, and wont to its full value. He could not plough his land, and it was none too good for cattle.—The assessor said ho had soon the land worked. The whole block was good grazing land. Valued it at £0 per acre, and did not couJfuler it excessive. McCully’s laud, close by, was valued at £o,—The objector said McCully’s bind was all dry and Jit to plough. A lot of las own laud could not be drained.— Ueduced to £770; improvements £i!s> unimproved £055. Cbjeetor dal not consider it half enough.

P. McCarthy : 100 acres, Rangitata’ valuation £l5O, improvements £6O. — Reduced to £120; improvements £4O, unimproved £BO. W. Stevens : 300 acres, valuation £9OO. In this case a clerical error had occurred —IOO acres was freehold, and 200 acres leasehold. —Alterations made accordingly, and valuation reduced to £BOO, the amount put upon it originally by assessor ; the 100 acres freehold was reduced to £l2O.

W. Demuth: 275 acres, valuation £BSO, improvements £SO. —Mr A. W. Gaze appeared for objector and stated the land in question was a rifle range reserve, vested in the Temuka Volunteers. It was mostly sterile, overgrown with gorse, and subject to flood. The improvements, a rifle butt and ammunition house, wore not improvements in the meaning of the Act, and of no value to the lessee. He asked for a substantial reduction. —Reduced by £1 per acre, the improvements to be assessed at £2O; total reduction, £305.

Objections were made in respect of properties owned by Messrs W. R. Brown, A. R. Kirk, W. Horsley, J. Malcolmsou, FI. J. LeCron,. E. Jones, P. Loney, G. AY. S. Lyttelton, W. Kennaway, A. White, J. T. M. Hayhnrst, and J. A. Young, hut were struck out, the objectors not appearing. This concluded the business.