PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ACT.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1342, 5 February 1881, Page 2

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ACT.

Board of Reviewers. (Before M ssers B. Tonks (chairman}, Proud, and Moat, Commissioners on behalf of the Government.) The Court sat on Thursday in the Waikato County Couucil Chambers, to hear objections for Piako, Kirikiriroa, Cambridge, and Borough of Hamilton.

Piako. J. Hally. — Appealed, his land in Piako being valued 30s per acre was too high. Valuation sustained. E. B. Walker. — Matters being complicated, through description of area, this case was act aside to enable the Commissioners to investigate, and make final arrangements. J. Brown, Cambridge, for whom Mr Walker appeared. — Arranged. E. Graham, W. J. Taylor, and W. Reynolds had objections lodged, but were not present. Assessments all sustained. W. C. L. Williams.— Objection, that certain interests only were taxable. The Court adjourned for five minutes to consider the case, and on resuming the Court allowed the appeal. C. Ring. — Objection, over-valued. Allowed by Court. W. M. Hay. — Objecting to valuation on land in Waitoa. Mr Ellis appeared, and applied for an adjournment of Mr Hay's case, he being unavoidably absent in Auckland, and that he would be present on the 4th instant, at Ohaupo, to appeal. The Board found it difficult to accede to this application, as the assessors and others stated they could not attend, which would place the matter in the same position when sitting at Ohaupo. Not granted. Searle, Simpson, and Trust, and J. Jenkins. — No appearance.

Cambridge. J. Hally. — Objection, excessive valuation. The assessor stated the law had been adhered to, and the Court, on enquiry, having found such to be the case, sustained assessment The Court, in commenting on similar cases to the above, admitted that in very many instances the law was very hard on owners of leasehold property, but, on the other hand, Government had to submit to the same system, and were heavy losers in that way. For instance, there was a property lately before them where a piece of land was rented at £52 per year, whereas the real market value for leasing purposes was a good deal over £100. Thus, fourteen times £52, instead of fourteen times £100, showed a great loss to the Govern- J ment. This was the only consolation he i could offer to appellants on that score. A. Clemmeut. — No appearance. | C. Tippin.— Objeotion, excessive valuation. This being an error, by misunderstanding ownership of another property which was included, the valuation was, by consent of all concerned, reduced by £375. Isaac Bates. — No appearance. A. A. Fautham. — Objection, valued £2 per acre too high. This property was represented by the assessor as being the farm, par excellence, of the locality, aud much nearer to the growing town of Cambridge than other farms referred to by Mr Fantham. This feature Mr Fantham ignored altogether, as he sent all stock, &c, to Auckland. Beduced £1 per aero, instead of £2, as applied for. James McPherson, Kirikiriroa.—Objection, over-valued £200. — Allowed. J. Ratt, Hautapu. — Objection, that not being the owner of 118 and 119 at the time the returns were made out, has had included the purchase money as cash in hand on the personal returns. The Commissioner informed him that, if the Board sustained the valuation, he would allow drawback on the purchase money so included. — Granted. I J. Kirkwood, F. JR. Claude, and J. M. Lennox. — No appearance. J. Uzzell. — Mr Tippin appeared, and objected to the area being returned as too much. Objection allowed, and reduced accordingly. W. Cuinming. — Objection, excessive valuation. His land, lot 9, was half swamp, and close to a large lako (Tunawhakapeka), and, except the Government drained the lake for him and rendered the land arable, they could not expect to tax him so very high. The witness called said he wonld not like to give £1 an acre for it, though that was something near the mark. Reduced by £10. Merkham, Buchanan, Scott, Coombes, and Forrest. — No appearance. JR. Lamb, mill site.Ngarua-wahia. The Commissioners pointed out to the Court that the objection was not received till two days after last day, viz., the 3rd, and showed post mark on the envelope bearing out the statement. The Court could only act according to law and refuse to {hear the objection, at the same time admitting it was a hard case, Mr Lamb having mislaid tho returns, but found it on the 3rd, and posted it half-an-hour after post- office hours. The Commissioners promised to write to Me Lamb, aud see what could be done. The Court was very glad t« hear the Commissioners expression on the matter, as this was the first year in working the system they wished to give every latitude at thoir command, and would only refuse requests which would bo flagrant indifference to the law as it stood, and which they were compelled to do their duty and administer. Mr Lamb : I will be on the look out next year. Chairman ; Yes ; you can appeal just the same next year. Though the valuations are trivial, objections are heard yearly. J. Coates : Over-valued by 30s an acre. The objector considered that although he was claiming compensation for the railway going through his farm, still the farm was not so valuable for the very reason of being cut up and severed from water. The Chairman : I have had a large experience in these matters, where railway works have initiated compensation claims, and I am quite sure that compensation for forced sale and severance is no guide to price of laud. This was for the information of his colleagues. Reduced 20s per acre. Speed, Hanlon, and Zeigler. — No appearance. The Board adjourned till 2 o'clock.

The Court resumed at 2 p m.

Rangiriri. Eight objections vrere lodged, of which J. Gaul put in ao appearance, objecting to the valuation as being excessive ; property leasehold. I Valuation reduced to £240, being in accordance with the 24th clause of the Act.

Borough of Hamilton. T. H. W. Morris.— Objection, assessed for property not owned by him. The Commissioners, finding that no return had been received at the office io Auckland from Mr Morris, the matte? was left to be arrauged at Auckland. " J.Halljr. — Excessive valuation.-—Valua-tion sustained. * W. Cumming. —- Objection, excessive valuation. Lot. 77, relaced half of amount re-

requested; Royal Hotel, reduoed £200; lots 82, 104, 105, and otheri, valaatiou sustained. J. MoPhewon, J. Wood, W. M. Hay, B. Coleman, and J. Bycroft.— Objection* lodged, and no appearance. Mr Pearce appeared before the Court ift regard to matters relating to his interest, and the Commissioners promised to com* municate with him. <~ \L . ' Mr J. K. McDonald alacf applied to be heard in respect to his personal property, which had been made erroneously, and the Commissioners undertook to rectify the matter on arrival at Auckland. The Court then rose.