H.—42.

!J. A. PABK.

86

leads me to suggest that a property-valuers' association should be formed, and only qualified valuers should be members. When two parties require a valuation they should be in a position to send to the secretary the names of two valuers to act, and the third party should be a man appointed to the permanent position of chairman for each city, whose experience of valuation in time would lead him to be of great value as a third party. The principle of selecting a qualified valuer is one that would place not only the valuer's reputation but the association's reputation at stake, and they would require to have a properly defined principle of arriviug at their valuations. Then I would go further and grant the right to appeal to a Judge alone, who takes the evidence of the three valuers only and decides. I do not think the Arbitration Court would be a suitable tribunal by any means. As to objection No. 4, it is said that a tenant has the option to buy or surrender under the terms of the Dunedin leases. In my opinion he has no option—he is compelled to buy to protect the value of his building, and I know of no case where a building has been forfeited. It is possible that an opposition trader may outbid the tenant for the property and so secure the connection, but it is highly improbable. It has only happened in one case in Dunedin to my knowledge. As to the auction, I almost feel inclined to advise that it should be done away with, and yet I cannot quite make up my mind. It is not so much what has happened in the past as what may happen in the future if there is no auction. Although it is a protection to a public body- I feel very much inclined to do away with it. Then, with regard to the cost of renewals, in my opinion the cost could be reduced under the suggestion of a registered association which would have a scale of charges. All renewals under £100 could be engrossed on the old lease in a short form, and signed by both parties. Referring to the last clause in the memorandum, as to the principle of fixing values, in my opinion the fairest way of fixing a ground-rent is by a certain rate of interest on the capital, value. This system can only be unfair if the property itself has been valued too high; this then is the fault of inexperienced valuer's. 2. To Mr. Thomas.] You cannot in valuing take a prospective rise into consideration unless you also take into consideration a prospective fall. Business properties are paying fairly well in Dunedin just now, but I should not like to say what the position will be in three or four years' time. We do not know, for instance, what effect the war will have. 3. To Mr. O'Shea.] I do not know that you could buy 7 any land now in Wellington at the Government valuation, but when there is a fever on for buying you must let people cool down before you can get at legitimate values. The same thing happened in Auckland some ten or twelve years ago. It is cooling down now.

Dunedin, Wednesday, 31st Januai.it, 1917. Saul Solojion, X.C, examined. (No. 43.) I. Tn the Chairman.] lam a barrister and solicitor practising in Dunedin. 1 notice that witnesses have been asked whether it has been found that the auction of a lease at the end of its term has resulted in loss to the tenant by reason of his losing his goodwill. As that matter came before us most acutely about eighteen months ago it has been thought proper by a client of mine that the facts should Ire placed before you so that the Commission may see there is a serious danger in that connection. A client of mine, Mrs. Laurenson, jointly with her husband I think, held a Corporation lease of long standing, which lease matured in March, 1915, I think. On that lease was the hotel at the corner of George Street and hondon Street which was originally called the " Black Bull." That hotel had stood there from time immemorial. The ground-rent of the lease was £60 a year. It fell in at the date I have mentioned, and in accordance with the terms of the lease it was revalued. The ground-rent on revaluation came to, I think, £120 a year, and the valuation of the building was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,050. When the lease was put up to auction the tenant, who was their a widow, was called upon to pay £390 per annum—that is to say, she was so run up at the auction that she had either to let her property go or take up the lease at the increased ground-rental of £390. It was not a tied house in any way. A large proportion of Mrs. Laurenson'B income w-as derived from this property. It was against our advice that she bought this property back. The war- was-in progress, and things were steadily getting worse. She had sublet to a tenant who was paying £10 a week. She had to keep the rental up in order to get anything out of the property in consequence of the additional rental she had to pay. Well, she was threatened by the sublessee that he would be compelled to surrender the lease, as he could not pay the rental. Messrs. Speight and Co., who were financing the tenant, assured us that this woman could not possibly carry on. Thereupon we asked the Council to allow some representative of Messrs. Speight and Co. and a representative of our firm to place the matter before the Council. Mrs. Laurenson is a client of a lifetime of my office, and she is an upright, reputable woman. The Council were good enough to agree that we should appear before them, and they gave us a good hearing. I hope it will not be considered for a moment that I am suggesting the Council were actuated by any improper motives in the attitude they took up. It is just on the general principle lam speaking. At the interview we had with the Council we urged that we thought it was only fair that Mrs. Laurenson should be entitled to the lease at the outside value that could be placed upon it. We stated that we were quite willing to allow their valuers to make a valuation, and that we were quite prepared to pay what they considered the extreme value for the lease. I received a letter in reply on the 20th October declining our request, but offering to have the property again put up to auction-at the upset. [Letter' read.] Well, that could not, of course, be done without the consent of the subtenant, and so far as the tenant herself was concerned she was placed in the predicament that she might find herself in a worse position than before. As it was obvious the price was