ASSESSMENT COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2592, 28 August 1909, Page 7

ASSESSMENT COURT.

SITTINGS AT GISBORNE. The periodical sitting of the Assessment Court in Gisborne, was held yesterday, when a largo number of objections to the valuations made by the District Valuer, were considered. JFor the Waikohu County Messrs. W. A. .Barton* S.M., George Redpath, and W. E. Ackroyd constituted the Court, and Mr. C. F. Lewis, District Valuer, appeared to represent the Valuation Department. James McGregor (Mr. Stock) objected to the capital value of £2402 placed upon his property of 206 acres at .Karaka. There was a dwelling on the land, and he bought the property this year from Colonel Winter at £7 per acre. The land was alternately flat and hill country. He considered that £6 per acre would be good value for the land. To Mr Lewis: He had offered the property for sale at £ll 10s per aero. About _ a year ago he placed the property in the hands of an agent to sell at £l3 per acre. He would sell the property for £2IOO to a buyer. He had asked £2369 for the property. George Grant, surveyor), said he had inspected, the property in question in July last and considered the unimproved value to be £2134 and the improvements at £4 10s per acre. . He had taken the productiveness of the land into consideration. Mr. Lewis addressed the Court in support of the valuation fixed by him. Mr. Stock said that a fact that a purchaser could not be found for the land at £ll 10s per acre was proof that the valuation'was too high. The Court reduced the unimproved value to £6 per acre, and the capital value to £2163. AN OBJECTION TO VALUATION OF TIMBER.

Peter "Wright (Mr. Stock) objected to the capital and unimproved value put on his property of 2000 acres at Motu. In 1905 the capital value was £3390, • the unimproved value £2OOO, and the owner’s interest in improvements at £319. In 1908 the capital value bad jumped ut> to £10,510, the unimproved to £4490, and the owner’s interest in the timber on* the land £3600. About 600 acres was still bush land and covered with timber. The timber could not be put into use until the railway reached Motu and the timber was worse than valueless because Mr. Wright was put to the expense of cutting- the timber to clear the land. Then as a matter of fact, this -iVas the only selection in the Motu on which the value of the timber" had been assessed. The objector said he was a settler living at Motu and the owner of the land in question. He acquired the freehold eight years ago. In 1905 the Government valuation was £3390 capit- . al, and £2OOO unimproved. The last valuation was made about 18 months ago when the capital value was fixed ■at £10,510. The railway, at that time, was 25 miles away and it was difficult to get access to his ■ property in the winter months. He had about 1300 acres of bush on his property, principally rimti and tawa timber. He had felled 500 acres of bush. The nearest sawmill was six miles away. Pie could not put the timber to any profitable use. His income from the property had been about £250 a year for the last three or four years. The property was uot paying him. If the valuation was sustained his taxation would be so heavy that he was afraid to look at the amount. He would never be able to make the property pay. Similar properties in the district had been valued at £1 per acre. Only about 700 acres of the land had been improved. He had carried out £4OO worth of improvements since the valuation. He had .spoken to the District Vainer in reference to the' valuation of the timber, and Mr. Lewis had said he had put £6 an acre on 600 acres of milling timber ■adjacent to the road. To. Mr. Lewis: He thought it best to lease the timber on the land if he had not the money to clear it. lie could have borrowed money to '"car the land; but he did not - care to do .so because he could uot get good bushfelling done. He did not object to the previous variation. He had been negotiating to sell the timber but the price was not discussed. Many people had spoken to him about the timber. Mr. George Wratt, of Danno-Arise, lad novel put a value on it. He had to 1 or had the area of milling timber stu veyed. He could not say of his own knowledge if he was the only property owner in the Motu district assessed fui timber. He had never sold any timber off the land. He was not holding the timber with a view to its milling valuation. He had started to fell the timber so that grass could be put down. His.section fronted the road. He was felling the timber so as to get out of the valuation of £6 per acre for the timber. He, held that half >.Mr. Tullock’s land was as good as his land. He had land as poor in .quality as Mr. Tullock’s: As far as he was aware Mr. Tullock’s block was only valued at £1 per acre. He would not sell the property for less than the valuation because the prospects of the railway reaching the Motu increased the prospective value. He did not think the land was worth £10,510 now. He had decided not to reserve the timber for milling purposes as there would be no market until the railway reached the Motu. Thomas Elliott, farmer at Motu, said he knew various properties there. He owned 320 acres, and knew Peter Wright’s property. His property was valued at £2 per acre and was superior to objector's property. He had about 50 acres Hi river flats and about 40 acres of hill flats. He would not call the timber on .Wright’s land good milling timber. The timber was too scattered and not worth £3600. There were no means of getting the timber out. If a person offered to take the timber he would he a speculator. He considered Mr. Bridges’ and Mr. Little’s properties superior in quality to Mr. Wright’s William W. Bridge, sheepfarmor, at Motu," said Ho owned about 1525 acres. Ho knew the objector’s property and considered the land of about equal value. His assessment, was 8800 acres L.1.P., at £2. and 675 acres freehold at £2. He thought his freehold land better class than Wright’s land. He knew the timber area in question, but did not think it of much value for roillAnio- purposes. He estimated that the rates on "Wright’s property on _ the present valuation would total £SO a year. If his land was. worth £2 5s an acre Mr Wright’s would not be overvalued; ' ' Augustus Thomas Hayes, shecpfarim or. at Motu, said lie had a freehold of 575 acres close to the objector’s land. The country Was the same class and the valuation was £2 unimproved. He did not think Wright’s land worth more. He would not call the timber •good milling timber. He thought the talk of millions of feet of timber in the. Motu exaggerated. Cecil Francis Lewis. District Valuer, ►said that in May, 1908, he' went eare : J’.L: I T> ~

f Mortensen, objector’s son-in-law, who said he was in charge of the place. Mortensen said the area, of milling timber had been surveyed at 600 acres. Mortensen said the old man had a good thing in the milling timber. Witness inspected the bush. The land was good, loamy soil,, and was worth more than Air W. W. Bridge’s land. JVlortensen said that Wright would not "cut down the timber as it would pay better to “hang on” to it. Lancf of the same quality as objector’s land, and owned by Mr. Blair, Motu, had recently been sold at £6 IQs per acre. Mr C. H. Bridge had paid £2231 for a Crown lease, of which the Crown’s interest was £484, and the valued at £1134, or equivalent to £2 per acre for the goodwill of the lease. Mr Baird had purchased the interest of a lease of 2000 acres at £ISOO. The land was unfenced, and only 160 acres in grass. Air Morris had bought 1967 acres at Matawai at £2 per acre.

To Mi 1 Stock: Blair's property was nearer to the railway than Wright’s. Tho property Mr C. IT. Bridge bought was nearly all improved and subdivided. He would not recommend the Advances to Settlers’ Department to advance three-fifths of the valuation put on the standing bush because the Government would not lend on that class of security. The objector, recalled, denied that Mr Mortensen had any power to give the valuer any information about. the property. Neither had he told Mortensen that he was reserving the timber for milling purposes. He would not say the information given was false. The Valuer addressed the Court at length in support of the valuation. Mr Stock addressed the Coiirt and contended that it was not right to suppose the objector was retaining the timber as an asset that might become valuable in the dim and distant future. The objector was developing his .land as his means would allow. His Worship said judgment in the case would be reserved. AN UNUSUAL OBJECTION. The objection of Charles M. Simson, who desired to have the valuation on bis property increased, was struck out as the objector failed to appear. A VALUATION REDUCED. Mr G. Redpath then retired from the'Court, and Mr G. Grant took his seat on the Bench as the Assessor for the Ara-i Riding of the Cook County. Mary Black (Sir Stock) objected to the capital and unimproved value on her property at Ivaiti. In 1904 the capital value was £IOOO and improved £6OO. In 1906 the capital value was £1748 and unimproved £I3OO. The capital value in 1908 was assessed at £4292.

Cf. j .Black, husband of the objector, said his wife purchased the property in 1905 at £2OOO. Since then £6OO had ben spent on the buildings. The capital value of the land was £IOO in 1904. The present valuation was £4292. The property had a river frontage, and a frontage to a road. To Mr Lewis: He thought the value of the property had gone up the last few years. He knew that Mr Barker bad paid a fancy price for some land near by. He valued the property at £2500.

The District Valuer, sworn, said that in 1907 Mr Barker paid £ISOO for 4 acres of land without buildings, _ and without a river frontage, and adjoining Mrs. Black’s section.. In 1907, £1350 was paid by Mr Chrisp for 6 acres of land further away from the Borough boundary/ Dr. Williams had paid £IO7O for 5 acres over a mile further away. Recent sales had also proved the value of the land in that locality. He considered some of the sales took place at excessive values, but he thought Mrs Black’s property would realise the assessed value in the open market. River, frontages would bring almost any price the owners asked for them. The valuation was £225 per acre unimproved. The Court decided to fix the capital value at £4IOO, thus .reducing the unimproved value by £l9O. BOROUGH REVISION. Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., G, Grant and W. Ackroyd also constituted the Court for the revision of the valuations of properties within the Borough. After hearing evidence the valuation of Mr Hill McGowan’s property, next to Messrs Nathan and Co.’s warehouse, Customhouse street, was reduced from £3320 to £2780. The Court was hearing the objection of Air R. J. Reynolds, when Air Lewis was called away on account of the illness of his son, and the hearing was adjourned until this morning.