TAYLOR,
J.:—The
present
appeal
is
from
a
decision
of
the
Board
of
Valuation
and
Revision
for
the
city
of
Winnipeg,
and
the
grounds
of
appeal
question
the
whole
method
of
assessment.
The
reasons
given
by
the
board
for
the
decision
appealed
from
are
as
follows
(for
convenience
of
reference
I
have
numbered
the
paragraphs
1
to
7
inclusive)
:
(1)
The
chief
controversy
in
this
appeal
centres
around
the
value
of
the
land.
"‘(2)
In
previous
appeals
affecting
the
same
property
Mr.
Christie
has
given
the
following
valuations
as
to
land:
"1933,
$46,464;
1935,
$84,017;
1936,
$26,202;
a
reduction
of
2612
per
cent
in
value
between
1933
and
1935,
and
a
reduction
of
4512
per
cent
between
1933
and
1936,
and
a
reduction
of
23
per
cent
between
1935
and
1936.
Notwithstanding
the
recognized
depreciation
in
land
values
in
recent
years,
it
is
difficult
to
conceive
that
there
has
been
a
45
per
cent
decline
between
1933
and
1936,
or
a
23
per
cent
decline
in
one
year
between
1935
and
1936.
"
"
(3)
In
regard
to
the
returns
on
the
property,
the
following
figures
are
of
interest:
|
1933,
net
loss
|
-
|
$1,592
|
|
1934
|
‘
‘
|
«
|
|
972
|
|
1935
•
•
«
|
|
3,800
|
"‘but
it
will
be
observed
in
the
footnote
of
Mr.
Christie’s
Exhibit
1
that
$3,589
was
spent
on
exterior
stucco,
repairs,
and
alterations
to
fit
the
corner
premises
for
occupancy
by
his
firm,
ineluding
the
building
of
a
fireproof
vault,
oak
counters,
etc.,
a
large
proportion
of
which
is
properly
capital
expenditure.
Deducting
this
extraordinary
expenditure
of
$3,589
from
the
$3,800,
leaves
an
actual
operating
loss
of
$211,
which
is
a
considerably
better
showing
than
either
1934
or
1933.
(4)
Recent
improvements
have
put
the
building
in
much
better
condition
but
the
building
admittedly
is
not
a
complete
development
of
the
property.
It
is
only
what
is
stated
among
appraisers
as
a
^tax-carried,’
and
in
such
a
case
the
amount
of
return
to
the
investor
on
the
present
improvement,
ceases
to
be
a
major
factor
in
valuation.
More
important
is
its
location,
its
possibilities
for
development
and
comparative
values.
"(5)
The
assessment
history
of
the
property
is
set
forth
in
Exhibit
6,
showing
a
decline
in
land
assessment
from
1915
of
$304,500
to
1936
of
$48,370.
1
"
(6)
The
assessor
has
had
considerable
experience,
he
has
given
consideration
of
comparative
values,
and
has
had
the
benefit
of
consultation
with
the
leading
realty
dealers,
members
of
the
Real
Estate
Board.
His
valuation
is
supported
by
Mr.
Simpson
a
member
and
a
past
president
of
the
Real
Estate
Board.
"
(7)
After
consideration
of
the
evidence
and
a
view
of
the
property
the
Board
fixes
the
assessment
at
$59,570
:
divided,
land
$48,370
and
building
$11,200.’’
[The
learned
Judge
here
referred
to
Ex.
6
which
showed
in
detail
the
decline
mentioned
in
para.
5
supra
and
proceed
:
I
In
the
determination
of
the
questions
involved
in
the
appeal,
I
am
greatly
indebted
to
the
exhaustive
and
painstaking
decision
by
my
brother
Montague,
J.
in
In
re
Phillipps
Estate,
41
Man.
R.
582,
[1934]
1
W.W.R.
499.
The
leared
Judge’s
summing-up,
at
p.
470,
as
to
the
method
of
approach
to
an
appeal
such
as
the
present
leaves
nothing
to
be
desired,
and
is
as
follows:
‘
‘
Finally
it
remans
with
me
to
weigh
the
evidence
in
relation
to
the
statute
and
to
decide
whether
the
board
performed
its
duty.
To
do
this
I
must
myself
make
a
finding
as
to
the
value
of
the
property.
I
must
seat
myself
in
the
office
chair
of
the
‘prudent
investor’
and
determine
the
amount
which
in
my
opinion
he
would
be
likely
to
be
willing
to
pay,
in
the
way
of
investment,
for
the
Empress
Block.
I
must
consider
the
property
as
a
unit
and
disregard
the
assessments
of
other
properties.
I
should
not
forget
that
the
property
has
stood
open
to
the
world
at
$30,000
for
the
past
two
years,
but
I
must
remember
the
present
world-wide
depression.
By
and
large
it
is
my
duty
to
consider
every
present
and
potential
factor
bearing
on
the
value
of
the
property,
‘to
measure
the
forces
making
for
the
present
shrinkage
and
any
again
likely
to
arise
making
for
an
increase
of
value’.”
It
is
unnecessary
perhaps
to
state
that
the
findings
arrived
at
must
be
from
the
evidence
given
before
the
board.
In
the
present
appeal
this
evidence
is
not
as
complete
as
might
be
desired.
The
evidence
for
the
appellant
is
that
of
Mr.
Christie
himself
and
his
employee
Mr.
Muton;
and
for
the
city,
the
assessor
Mr.
Donaldson
and
Mr.
C.
M.
Simpson,
a
member
of
the
Winnipeg
Real
Estate
Exchange.
The
property
under
appeal
has
a
frontage
of
116.16
feet
on
Notre
Dame
Avenue,
and
a
depth
of
149.5
feet
on
Arthur
Street,
and
is
at
the
north-east
intersection
of
them.
There
is
a
two-
storey
brick
building
covering
all
the
Notre
Dame
frontage
to
a
depth
of
80
feet.
The
remaining
69.5
feet
behind
the
building
is
used
partly
for
the
purpose
of
a
lane,
and
the
balance
is
a
parking
ground.
Both
parties
to
the
appeal
have
considered
the
property
as
being
two
properties;
that
is,
the
Notre
Dame
frontage
to
a
depth
of
100
feet
with
the
building
on
it
is
assessed
at
one
rate,
and
the
remainder
of
the
vacant
land,
49.5
feet,
running
back
the
full
depth
of
the
property
(116.6
feet)
is
assessed
as
""Arthur
Street
frontage,’’
and
at
a
different
rate.
Mr.
Muton’s
evidence
concerns
principally,
in
fact
almost
entirely,
the
question
of
revenue
from
the
property,
and
his
statement
(Ex.
1)
covering
revenue
for
the
years
1933-4-5,
shows
a
definite
operating
loss.
Exception
was
taken
to
his
statement
because
it
spread
in
the
expense
account
covering
these
three
years
a
large
sum
spent
for
repairs
in
1935.
It
was
claimed
that
a
good
deal
of
this
amount
should
have
been
charged
to
capital
account;
but
even
if
that
were
done,
there
would
still
be
an
actual
operating
loss
for
each
of
the
three
years.
Mr.
Christie
‘s
evidence,
as
led
by
his
counsel
in
examination
in
chief,
is
devoted
entirely
to
showing
that
the
property
should
be
valued
for
assessment
purposes
solely
on
the
basis
of
the
revenue
which
it
would
produce.
On
this
basis
Mr.
Christie
valued
the
land
at
$26,202,
and
the
building
at
$13,000,
or
a
total
of
$39,202,
as
compared
with
the
present
assessment
of
$59,570.
From
p.
14
and
following
of
his
evidence
I
quote
:
"‘Q.
How
do
you
arrive
at
those
valuations,
Mr.
Christie
on
what
do
you
base
your
opinion?
A.
I
base
my
opinion
on
the
earning
value
of
a
property.
The
value
of
the
land
is
what
you
can
put
a
building
up
on
there
to
earn
the
highest
revenue.
"‘Q.
At
this
amount
that
you
have
value
it,
$39,202,
that
would
be
the
earning
value
based
on
the
rentals
as
at
present
rented—perhaps
I
had
better
put
a
more
comprehensive
question:
based
on
present
rentals,
average
expenses,
adjusted
taxes,
Insurance
and
depreciation?
A.
Well
that
property
on
my
value
would
earn
4.49
per
cent.
That
would
be
on
$39,202.
‘
‘
But
it
is
apparent
that
Mr.
Christie
thinks
that
even
his
own
figures
are
too
high.
I
quote
further
from
his
evidence
commencing
at
p.
15
:
"‘Q.
Do
you
consider
the
4.49
is
a
reasonable
compensation
for
that
investment.
A.
No,
it
is
not.
"
Q.
What
would
you
think
would
be
a
reasonable
compensation?
A.
I
think
a
person
ought
to
get
6
per
cent
on
it,
because
property
is
something
that
if
you
want
to
dispose
of
it
there
is
no
market
for
it
sometimes;
there
is
no
market
for
it
today,
and
you
can’t
dispose
of
it.
With
stocks
or
bonds
or
anything
like
that
there
is
generally
a
market
that
you
can
get
your
money
any
time
you
want
it,
and
you
can
use
your
judgment
whether
the
market
is
going
up
or
down;
but
real
estate
you
are
tied
up,
and
you
are
at
the
mercy
to
a
great
extent,
I
might
say,
of
the
Assessment
Department
in
taking
from
you
your
equity
in
any
property.
That
has
been
my
experience.
’’
Mr.
Christie
admitted
that
he
had
in
a
previous
hearing
before
the
board
(1933)
valued
the
land
at
$46,640
and
the
building
at
$13,000,
but
says
that
he
had
since
been
trying
to
sell
the
whole
thing
for
$35,000
and
had
advertised
it
for
sale
at
that
price
just
a
few
days
before
giving
lis
evidence
before
the
board
in
the
present
appeal,
but
had
received
no
offer
for
the
purchase
of
it,
and
had
been
unable
to
sell
it.
The
building
carries
insurance
of
$15,000,
placed
through
Mr.
Christie’s
agency.
In.
cross-examination
by
a
member
of
the
board,
Mr.
Christie
was
asked,
at
p.
18
:
‘
‘
Q.
What
shrinkage
in
real
estate
values
do
you
think
there
has
been
in
the
last
three
years
in
that
neighbourhood?
A.
Well
the
shrinkage
is
very
heavy,
very
heavy
the
last
three
years.
People
are
beginning
to
realize
now
that
their
properties
haven’t
earning
value.
Now
on
that
property
if
we
put
up
a.
first-class
building,
with
the
results
that
other
first-class
buildings
have,
I
don’t
think
you
would
get
an
earning
of
one
or
two
per
cent
on
your
building.
The
rents
have
dropped
down,
oh
a
great
deal.
The
rents
on
stores
have
dropped
down
a
great
deal
by
the
big
stores
absorbing
the
most
of
the
business
;
and
the
future
does
not
look
any
brighter
than
the
past.
People
are
trying
to
get
out
and
dispose
of
their
property,
get
what
they
can
for
it,
because
they
have
seen
it
go
down
in
value
for
a
number
of
years
past,
the
earning
value.
’
’
And
at
p.
19
:
"‘Q.
The
adjoining
property,
Mr.
Christie,
was
sold
for
taxes?
A.
It
was
sold
for
taxes
and
the
city
I
believe
have
title
to
it.
Mr.
Bond
will
probably
know
that.’’
And
further
on
in
reply
to
questions
he
says:
“Q.
That
is
property
adjoining
on
the
east?
A.
Adjoining
it
on
the
east.
I
was
enquiring
from
Mr.
Borrowman
a
few
days
ago
and
he
said
that
the
city
had
taken
title
to
it.
Now
that
runs
for
five
years
probably
waiting
to
get
an
offer
to
sell
it,
and
not
being
able
to
sell
it
they
let
the
city
take
it
for
taxes.
‘‘Q.
Do
you
know
whether
there
was
a
mortgage
on
the
property
at
all?
A.
I
don’t
know.
I
don’t
think
there
was;
not
to
my
knowledge.
If
there
was
a
mortgage
the
mortgage
people
hadn’t
protected
it.”
Mr.
Christie
while
admitting
that
in
1933
he
had
valued
the
land
at
$60,176,
which
was
$400
per
foot
for
the
Notre
Dame
Avenue
frontage
for
its
total
depth
(apparently
including
building)
says
that
it
is
not
worth
that
today,
and
continues:
"‘I
say
that
I
might
have
valued
it
too
high;
I
might
have
been
a
little
in
favour
of
the
city
a
year
ago,
which
I
have
been
right
along
in
a
great
many
cases;
but
today
I
am
giving
my
idea
of
values
today.
A
year
ago
hasn’t
anything
to
do
with
my
values
today.”
Mr.
Donaldson,
the
city
assessor,
says
his
office
has
access
to
the
land
titles
office
records;
that
they
collect
records
of
the
annual
turn-over
from
stores
for
business
tax
purposes,
and
of
rentals
of
vacant
lands
throughout
the
city;
that
they
have
access
to
traffic
counts,
and
that
they
make
a
monthly
canvass
of
vacant
stores
on
Main
Street
and
Portage
Avenue;
that
for
the
past
year
they
have
received
statements
of
expenses
and
income
of
over
300
apartment
blocks
in
Winnipeg;
that
all
such
information
is
classified
as
it
is
received,
and
that
it
enters
into
his
valuation
for
assessment
purposes.
At
p.
23
he
is
asked
the
following
question
:
‘‘Q.
You
consider
all
those
factors
in
making
your
valuation
?
A.
Yes.”
The
difficulty
with
this
class
of
evidence
is
that
Mr.
Donaldson
does
not
say
what
was
the
information
so
received
nor
how
it
could
or
did
affect
the
valuation
of
the
property
now
in
appeal,
nor
just
how
he
made
use
of
this
information
in
arriving
at
a
conclusion.
He
says
that
he
values
the
frontage
on
Notre
Dame
Avenue
at
$350
per
foot,
and
then
says,
at
p.
24:
•
"‘My
reason
for
placing
that
value
on
this
is
the
very
fine
location
of
the
property,
facing
Garry
Street,
in
view
of
and
distant
450
feet
from
Portage
Avenue.
Four
street
car
lines
loop
at
this
point,
and
66
feet
west
in
the
very
fine
modern
five-storey
Canadian
General
Electric
Building,
which
is
the
showroom,
office,
and
warehouse
for
the
Canadian
General
Electric
Company
here;
this
building
has
a
Tyndall
stone
front
with
bronze
doors
and
very
fine
showroom
windows;
built
in
1930.
It
is
the
most
up-to-date
and
modern
building
of
its
kind
in
Winnipeg.
The
building
permit
for
this
was
$225,000.
Across
the
street
to
the
south
is
the
ten-storey
reinforced
concrete
Lindsay
building
with
terra
cotta
front.
"'On
the
same
side
as
the
Christie
block
and
69
feet
to
the
east
is
the
St.
Charles
Hotel;
a
three-storey,
face
brick,
70-room
hotel
with
beer
parlor
and
dining
room;
and
71
feet
further
east,
on
the
corner
of
Albert
and
Notre
Dame,
is
the
Winnipeg
Electric
Railway
Chambers,
a
10-storey
fireproof
office
building,
the
finest
office
building
in
Winnipeg.
"
The
property
in
appeal
is
not
only
close
to
Portage
Avenue
and
the
retail
shopping
district,
but
also
to
the
warehouse
district,
very
close
to
the
warehouse
district.
‘
‘
He
adds
20
per
cent
in
valuation
to
the
25
feet
of
corner
frontage
which
he
says
is
the
usual
practice
with
all
business
property.
Mr.
Christie
apparently
had
in
his
previous
valuations
added
something
for
what
was
called
""corner
influence,’
but
for
some
reason
or
other
did
not
add
anything
in
his
present
valuation.
Mr.
Donaldson
goes
with
great
detail
into
the
value
of
the
building,
and
separately
computes
its
costs
by
basement,
foundation
and
superstructure
to
a
total
of
$53,535.
His
figures
are
based
on
the
well-known
but
hardly
accurate
system
of
cubic
content.
He
says
one
of
the
city
engineers
made
a
cost
survey
complete,
and
that
the
engineer’s
figure
was
$55,646.75.
I
think
this
latter
evidence
should
not
have
been
received
in
the
way
it
was
given.
The
engineer
himself
who
made
the
estimate
was
the
proper
witness
to
call.
Mr.
Donaldson
proceeds
to
make
liberal
deductions,
such
as
depreciation
covering
30
years,
31
per
cent,
or
$16,795
;
on
account
of
physical
condition
of
building
another
deduction
of
$7,500,
and
because
of
the
uninviting
appearance
of
the
building
a
further
deduction
of
$12,500,
which
brings
his
total
valuation
down
from
$53,535
to
$16,940.
His
reasons
for
these
various
deductions
are
elaborately
set
forth
in
his
evidence,
and
they
are
too
long
to
recount
here.
He
also
makes
some
comparisons
with
what
he
says
are
the
assessed
values
of
other
properties
in
the
neighbourhood,
but
these
relative
values
are
of
little
use
in
arriving
at
the
proper
assessment
of
the.
property
in
appeal,
because
admittedly
there
has
been
no
recent
sale
or
exchange
of
any
property
in
close
proximity
to
the
Christie
property
upon
which
any
real
value
could
be
calculated.
Mr.
Donaldson’s
evidence
in
this
connection
is
really
only
a
comparison
of
his
own
assessed
values.
A
great
deal
is
made
by
Mr.
Donaldson
of
the
location
of
the
present
property,
which
is
situate
close
to
Portage
Avenue
and
facing
into
Garry
Street,
which
is
the
second
street
west
of
and
parallel
to
Main
Street,
and
which
runs
into
Portage
Avenue
from
the
south.
Mr.
Donaldson
also
make
a
great
deal
of
the
favourable
location
of
the
property
in
appeal
because
it
is
in
close
proximity
to
such
buildings
as
the
Winnipeg
Electric
Building,
the
St.
Charles
Hotel
and
the
Lindsay
Building.
This
might
have
a
considerable
influence
upon
the
future
value
of
the
Christie
property.
Mr.
Donaldson,
however,
does
not
give
any
evidence
as
to
the
vacancies
in
these
buildings,
nor
as
to
whether
they
are
paying
their
way.
This
feature
is
important
because
of
the
attitude
taken
by
the
board
as
to
the
development
of
the
Christie
property.
If
it
had
been
shown
that
these
large
adjacent
buildings
were
fully
occupied
and
paying
a
good
annual
return
on
money
invested,
it
might
be
some
reason
for
the
attitude
which
the
board
take
in
par.
4
of
their
decision,
in
which
they
say,
in
part:
"‘The
building
admittedly
is
not
a
complete
development
of
the
property.’’
It
might
easily
be
that
the
presence
of
these
large
office
buildings
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
Mr.
Christie’s
property
might,
if
they
are
only
partially
rented,
be
a
deterrent
rather
than
an
inducement
to
a
more
extensive
development
of
the
Christie
property
at
the
present
time,
and
might,
in
the
eyes
of
a
prudent
investor,
rather
decrease
than
increase
its
prospect
for
future
development,
and
therefore
its
future
value.
Mr.
Donaldson
does
not
recommend
that
at
the
present
time
there
should
be
any
further
or
better
development
of
the
Christie
property,
although
he
does
express
the
belief
that
its
situation
makes
its
future
development
rather
inviting.
The
question
of
future
or
present
possibility
of
development
may
perhaps
enter
into
the
question
of
assessment;
but
what
has
to
be
ascertained
now
is
the
value
of
the
property
at
the
time
of
its
assessment,
and
the
future
or
present
possibilities
of
the
property
is
only
something
which
could
be
considered
in
connection
with
every
other
feature.
I
have
not
heard
it
suggested
that
the
city
has
any
right
to
dictate
to
a
property
owner
as
to
how
his
property
shall
be
developed,
or
to
what
extent,
so
long
as
he
complies
with
their
building
regulations.
The
owner
of
property
has
the
right
to
develop
it
or
not,
as
he
sees
fit,
and
within
the
means
at
his
command;
and
no
municipal
corporation
has
the
right
to
penalize
him
in
taxes
because
he
does
not
develop
it
in
the
way
someone
else
may
think
it
advisable
or
so
as
to
secure
from
it
the
largest
possible
annual
return.
The
city
has
the
right
to
tax
the
property
only
at
its
value
as
it
is,
and
not
at
a
value
which
might
be
the
result
of
further
improvements.
The
fact,
however,
that
the
property
is
far
from
being
fully
developed
is
almost
a
complete
answer
to
the
appellant’s
contention
that
the
assessment
should
be
based
upon
the
net
revenue
obtained
and
I
am
inclined
to
agree
with
what
the
Board
of
Valuation
said
in
its
reasons
for
decision,
that
the
revenue
‘‘ceases
to
be
a
major
factor
in
the
valuation.
‘
Mr.
Donaldson,
in
Exs.
4
and
5,
estimates
what
the
property
should
be
bringing
in
by
way
of
revenue,
and
from
that
concludes
that
there
should
be
a
net
revenue
of
.64
per
cent;
but
even
to
get
this
small
fraction
of
one
per
cent
in
net
revenue,
Mr.
Donaldson
has
charged
the
whole
of
the
1935
repairs
to
capital,
which
admittedly
would
not
be
right,
and
he
has
not
allowed
sufficient
percentage
for
store
vacancies.
He
seems
to
have
overlooked
the
fact
that
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
before
his
board
two
of
the
stores
had
been
rented
within
the
then
past
two
months
and
before
that
had
been
vacant.
Mr.
Donaldson’s
evidence,
however,
is,
I
think,
the
only
evidence
which
goes
into
details
of
the
value
of
the
building,
and
the
evidence
which
he
gives
with
respect
to,
and
the
basis
upon
which
he
has
computed,
the
value,
except
as
to
his
revenue
statements,
is
not
contradicted
by
evidence
on
behalf
of
the
appellants,
and
I
must
assume
that
they
would
have
contradicted
it
had
they
been
able
to.
I
do
not
consider
that
Mr.
Simpson’s
evidence
adds
very
much
to
the
record.
His
evidence
as
to
value
seems
to
be
based
largely
upon
his
conversations
with
the
members
of
the
Winnipeg
Real
Estate
Exchange,
and
his
optimistic
view
of
the
future.
Whether
he
be
right
or
wrong
in
his
optimism,
or
in
the
reasons
which
he
assigns
for
it,
the
fact
remains
that
the
evidence
of
Mr.
Donaldson
establishes
that
there
has
been
a
continuous
decline
year
by
year
in
the
value
of
Winnipeg
real
estate
since
1929;
and
while
Mr.
Donaldson
expresses
the
belief
that
the
end
of
the
decline
has
been
reached,
there
is
no
substantial
evidence
to
confirm
his
opinion.
He
states
the
instance
of
Mr.
Christie
leaving
the
Paris
Building
and
moving
into
the
property
in
question
here
as
being
a
very
distinct
compliment
to
the
property,
and
as
an
indication
that
it
was
going
to
improve
in
value.
Mr.
Christie
was
not
questioned
as
to,
nor
did
he
state,
his
reasons
for
making
the
move
from
one
building
to
the
other,
and
the
move
might
have
been,
accounted
for
by
other
reasons
entirely,
such
as
that
of
economy
in
office
expense.
The
only
reason
appearing
in
the
evidence
would
suggest
that
Mr.
Christie
moved
his
office
to
try
to
get
revenue
from
the
building
in
question
of
a
more
substantial
nature
than
theretofore.
Mr.
Simpson’s
evidence,
I
think,
is
entirely
too
speculative,
and
perhaps
visionary,
to
enable
me
to
say
that
he
would
represent
the
views
of
a
prudent
investor.
Ex.
6,
filed
on
behalf
of
the
city,
would
not
indicate
any
upward
trend
in
value
of
this
property,
because
this
year’s
assessment
of
it
is
less
than
last
year’s,
and
there
has
been
a
continuous
reduction
in
the
assessment
of
it
since
1915.
The
best
conclusions
I
can
reach
on
the
appeal
are
as
follows:
(1)
I
agree
with
the
Board
of
Valuation
that
in
this
case
net
revenue
from
the
building
is
not
an
important
factor
on
account
of
the
very
partial
development
of
the
property.
(2)
I
cannot
accept
Mr.
Christie’s
valuation
of
the
Notre
Dame
frontage.
If
his
valuation
of
$200
per
foot
could
have
been
proven
to
be
reasonable,
I
have
no
doubt
the
appellants
would
have
called
some
independent
evidence
in
support
of
it.
I
have
every
respect
for
Mr.
Christie’s
opinion
by
reason
of
his
long
experience
in
handling
and
valuing
property,
but
it
would
be
wrong
for
me
to
adopt
the
uncorroborated
view
of
the
owner
of
the
property
as
against
the
decision
of
the
board,
when
there
is
other
evidence
to
support
the
decision.
The
evidence
as
a
whole,
however,
meagre
as
it
is,
would
indicate
that
the
assessor’s
figure
of
$850
per
foot
is
too
high.
The
lack
of
substantial
independent
testimony
leaves
me
more
or
less
in
a
quandary
as
to
where
the
line
should
be
drawn.
I
do
think,
however,
from
the
evidence,
that
the
Notre
Dame
frontage
should
not
be
assessed
for
more
than
$300
per
foot
plus
20
per
cent
for
corner
25
feet,
and
the
assessment
will
be
reduced
accordingly.
(3)
The
assessment
on
the
building
should
remain
as
it
is.
(4)
The
assessment
of
the
Arthur
Street
frontage
of
49.5
feet
should
be
reduced
to
$100
per
foot.
The
appeal
will,
therefore,
be
allowed
to
the
extent
above
indicated,
and
as
the
appellants
have
substantially
succeeded
on
the
appeal,
they
should
have
their
costs.
Judgment
accordingly.
Email this Content