CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12] — Page 278

275

twenty-five years and was ignorant of the fact

that great strides had been made in science and mechanics, and that great improvements had been made in machinery and that bumerous novelties had been introduced? Am I to sup pose that when the Legislature uses a general word like "machinery," it only means ranchinery of a certain class? 1 camuot do so, and I can only say that if the word is to have a limited meaning it is a pity that it was not so defined, I therefore hold that lifts of this description are not reteable, and that being so I, in accord- ance with my decision in the Gas Company's case in 1890, bold that profits also are not rate-' able. By profits I mean the enhanced rental. that would accrue from the existence of such lifts. I need not therefore refer to the cases quoted on behalf of the appellant in sup- port of this contention. The correct way of assessing this property is to take the proba ble annual rental supposing that the lifts did? not exist. It is unfortunato in this case that the only evidence beforo me as to what this rental would probably be is oridence given ou behalf of the appellants. I do not suggest at all that such evidenco is untrustworthy, but it must be admitted that it would be more satisfactory to have evidence from the other side as well. However, I must do the best I can with what I have got. An- other point was raised by the appellants, that some further deductions ought to be made even in the case of the occupied portions of the building, inasmuch as on July 30, 1899, water had not been laid on, and the lavatories could not be used, and sonte portion of the base- ment was inaccessible; but seeing that the tenants went in with full knowledge of these defects, and that there was no evidence before mo that any reduction of the rent was going to he ruade or claimed on account of these deficiencies, I do not think that the assessor would have been justibed in taking them into consideration. The question now remains, what is to be the assessment ? Evidence was given as to the probable mouthly rentals of the premises with- out the lifts by Mr. Shelton Hooper aud Mr. Turner. The former estimated it at $860, and the latter at $930. I think that under the cir cumstancos, and considering that it is only an estimate, I ought to take the higher figure. Mr. Turner's estimate is as follows:-

First floor and part of basement

Second floor and part of basemont,

Half of the 3rd floor..

Do

Fourth floor

$400

3000

65

65

100

$930 From this must be deducted, as 1 bare already shews, $155, being the estimated monthly rentals of the fourth floor and balf the third, leaving a monthly rental of 3765 or an anuual rental of 89,180, and that is what I hold to be the proper annual rontal in this particular case. There will be costs for the appellants.

Spur TT ------- ------------