ASSESSMENT COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 459, 1 July 1902, Page 3

ASSESSMENT COURT.

A sitting of tho Assessment Court to deal with the objections to the Government valuations in tho Waiapu County and Borough of Gisborno was held yesterday. Messrs G. F. Campbell (doputy-Valuer-General), and lan S. Simson (Government Valuer for this district) appeared in support of the valuations. The Waiapu objections were first taken, boing hoard beforo Messrs W. A. Barton, S.M., G. McLaurin, and W. Sievwright. The list was soon run through, most of the cases boing arranged to tho mutual satisfaction of tho parties interested, or struck out owing to non-appearance of tho • objectors. - A small grazing-run in the Tokomaru -'-district, which was assessod at 80s per f acre, was the first case hoard, Mr Nolan appearing for tho owner, Mr A. H. Wallis. Sir Nolan said the objection was to tho unimproved value. It was now valued at 80s, whilst tho last valuation was £X. The land was a long way back from the coast at Tokomaru. A. H. Wallis deposed that ho was the owner of the block in question. Tho last value was Tl, and tho present value in his opinion wa3 tho same. It had not increased j if anything, it should bo less, as there were not the same returns off it as before. Ho did not know of any sale having taken place in the district to warrant an increase. Mr Campbell: Has there not been a general increase in tho value of land in this district during tho last five years ? Witness: Ido not think so. Mr Campbell : Do you moan to say that it would not fetch more to-day ? Witness : In particular places it might fetch more money for dairying purposes, There is not any moio demand for land, Ono reason for objecting was that ho thought that tho present unimproved valuo might bo used for rental purposes on tho capitalised value. The two departments might bo separato as far as he know. Ho did not think ho wouid bo able to get 'Bos for tho unimproved value now. _ „ v„i„„.

I. S. Sitnson, uovornment viuum, stated that ho valued tho land in question last October. He valued the Tokomaru land adjoining Mr Wallis’ at £2. There was no objection taken then. Ho had valued it for a special purpose, and no objection was taken. Ho did not alter his values. Mr Wallis’ run was one of tho best on the Coast, carrying five sheep to the acre. Values had gone up 25 per cent.' during the past five years. Tho land would bring 80s if put on the market tomorrow. , ~ By Mr Nolan : He had been all over tho property. All sales had shown that the price of land had gone up 25 per cent. Mr Nolan said on his own showing the valuer had put tho value cent., when it had only gone up 25 on his own statement. Tho Bench wore of opinion that the valuation should be sustained. Mr Nolan stated that under tho circumstances, ho would withdraw the objection lodged by Mr Q. J. White, as tho case was similar to that of Mr Wallis’.

BOROUGH VALUATION'S,

(Before Messrs Vv. A. Barton, S.M., F. Harris, and W. Sievwright.) Section 04, Lowe street; O. J. Homon's trustees. Mr R. X. Jones appeared in support of the objection. John Rosie, agent for 0. J. Flamon, stated that he knew the section which was occupied by three parties, Messrs Desßarrcs, E. J. Chrisp, and Hausen's trustees. The frontage to Lowe street was 00 feet. The buildings on part of the property cost £275 fourteen years ago, and were now only worth £175. The unimproved value was worth £SOO, ten

pouuus pet JUllLi By Mr Campbell : There had been no land sold in the vicinity for some time. Witness would not lend the sum of JsflOO on a section close to it. The building j was insured lor £'ioo. Mr Barton : Do you mean to say that the building which you say is only worth £175 is insured for £250 i Witness : Yes. (Laughter.) After hearing the evidence of the District Valuer the valuation was sustained. Gisborne Hotel : Mr J. H. Martin objected to the unimproved value of the Gisborne Hotel, which was set down at LtiOGO. The section was valued at £6O per foot, which was altogether too high. During the last ten months he had bought threequarter-ucro sections for XIUOO, which was about £4 per foot. He wished to know how they arrived at such a high price for his section. There was only Childer's road and one section betweeu the properties be had bought for X'luCO and his hotel.

By Mr Campbell: There was only one or two sections between his hotel and Hamon’s properties. Ho did not know that the latter sections were valued at .£3O per foot. The sections he had recently bought were residential sites. The hotel cost him £3OOO to build, lie valued the Hotel and section ut about T-I'lso. E. 1). B. Robinson, Borough _ Valuer, supported the valuation. The section was a valuable one and well worth .£3O per foot. Ho valued Hamon’s properties at the same price. By Mr Martin : Ho could not say what value had been put on the quarter-acre section opposite the Police Stalion. There had boon no properties sold near the Gisborne Hotel recently whereby they could compare values. The valuation was sustained. Section 105, Gladstone road, estate of C Andrews ; quarter-acre, capital value £2OIO, unimproved value £1650, improvements £390.

Mr E, G. Matthews, who appeared for the owner, said this section was past Mark Way's old shop, and was occupied by Messrs Bcavis, Voalo, and Miss Judd. He objected to both the value of tiie land and improvements. Mr J. Quigley deposed that the buildings belonging to the owner on the section in question were not worth more than ,£2OO. The Government assessment of tiie land, £1650, was altogether too high. Witness considered from £ls to £l7 per foot would be a high price for it. He based Ids valuation on sales of t,wo years ago. The properly adjoining, formerly occupied by Mr H. Lewis, had been sold for £BOO, and afterwards for £940, the frontage being 44ft and the buildings on it worth £SOO. By Mr Campbell : It was two years since Mr Lewis’s place was sold. Mr A. b l . Matthews stated that the land was not worth £l7 per foot, and that he considered was an outside price. By Mr Campbell: Land was lowor' ut

the present tiino than it was eighteen months ago. The Government had recently taken land belonging to himself. He asked dMOO for it, although he did not get that amount. He did not want the Government to take the land. To Mr Matthews : Witness got £2OO per acre for the land at Waikanae. James Bosic, agent for Mr Gibson, stated that he offered the section at the corner of Bright street and Gladstone Boad for sale by tender. Only one tender was sent in, being for iG3BOO. The offer was not accepted, but Mr Gibson would willingly tako that amount for it now. Mv Gibson was sorry that he had not accepted the tender at the time, as Mr Oatridgo, who made the offer, would

not give within £SOO of his first proposal. 12. G. Matthews, agent for the section in question, said that t-' :co of tbo shops on the section belonged to tho tenants. Only that occupied by Mr Boavis and a eottago at the back belonged to tho landlord. One part of Mr Beavis’s was very old. Tho income of the section would not pay 5 per cent, on the assessed value now before the Court. ■By Mr Campbell : The total rental received was £lB2. Tho oiler of .£BBOO for Mr Gibson’s section was made about twelve months ago. R. D. B. Robinson stated that tho unimproved value of section 105 was £25 per foot. He thought that it would bring that if put on the market. A section, 30 x 40 feet, near Maynard’s butcher’s shop in Rod street, had brought £2O a foot. By Mr Matthews: Gibson’s property was well worth £BO a foot. The Peel street section was sold for between £750 and £BOO. It was next to tho British Empire Hotel, and might bo 33ft deep by 40ft frontage. A side street could not be compared to Gladstone road. In reply to the Bench, Mr Campbell said Mr Gibson’s section was valued at

£3O a foot. W. Gaudin stated that tho valuation was a fair one, compared with tho prices ruling for land in tho main street. Owners of properties were averse to putting a price on their properties. Business sites were selling at a higher rate in Gisborne than in many other towns of the size throughout the colony. lan Simson, valuer, stated that ho valued the improvements on Gibson’s at £ISOO, and tho land at £3O a foot. Mr Good gave £SO a foot for the corner section of Gladstone Road and Lowe street. It had a frontage to Gladstone Boad, and Mr Good gave .£5600 for the property. Witness valued tho land at £3OBO, and the buildings at about £7OO. Mr Matthews pointed out that this £3OBO for the land would only give about £4O a foot, 110 had no desiro to take unfair advantage of Mr Simson, and therefore pointed out to him that he had omitted one portion of tho property. Tho Valuer said that the whole block was included, but afterwards admitted that ho] had omitted Mr Johnstone’s shop, valued at £1750.

The valuation was sustained. Section 117, Gladstone road, 10 perches, £1439 capital value, £IOB9 unimproved, improvements £350 (owner’s interests). •I. Rosie, owner, for whom Mr R. 2s, Jones appeared. Mr Jones said the land was rated at £33 a foot, and other places in the vicinity at only £3O. The Bench should, he said, not pay heed to a fancy price, but that ruling in open market. Mr Good, owing to circumstances, had given £BO a foot for his section, but the value would work out to about £SO. When they got the Masonic section at £6O it was unfair to rate the section in question at £33. They asked that it should he reduced to £3O a foot, and £250 taken off for the back portion,

J. Rosie deposed that he paid .£lB a foot for the section 4i years ago. He did not think it would increase in value more than i£l per year. The Government valuation of £B3 per foot was excessive. A. Y. Ross stated that Mr Rosie’s section was in some respects better than Mr Gibson’s, on the other corner. He considered that the land was worth £770. In arriving at that valuation he considered that tho section was oniv 80 feet deep. He did not think the land if put iDto the market would bring more than £22 per foot. Land at Lowe street corner was worth twice as much as at Bright street. Tho District Valuer in his evidence stated that in his assessment he took into consideration the depth of the section.

By Jlr-Jones : The Bank of Xew Zealand property had been valued at £SO per foot and reduced to £’4s. By Mr Campbell: The Theatre property had been valued at £o-5 per foot, and Humphreys and Davy's section at £3o per foot. Valuation reduced to £3O per foot. The Court adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning.