MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



85 



2 September, "1919.] 



MR. CASTELL WREY. 



[Continued. 



7776. Have you put anything in for depreciation? 

 I do not put anything in at all. 



7777. That is what you imagine has been done by 

 the valuers? Yes. 



7778. In regard to the value of horses this last 

 year you have appreciated your horses? The valuers 

 may have done so, I have not. The valuers say 

 that they value breeding stock and working horses 

 not likely to be sold at a fair standardised price 

 not according to market variations of the moment, 

 and they go ion: " Young stock certain to be 

 marketed and draft ewes, drape cows, and surplus 

 horses at their market price on the day of valua- 

 tion." 



7779. In your 1914 profit and loss account I see 

 that the stock on hand at the 6th April, 1914, is 

 23,671 6s. 4d. Yes. 



7780. The details of the valuations which you have 

 given us only account for 23,279 3s. lid. There is 

 a difference of 392 2s. od. Do you know why that 

 should be? No, I am afraid I do not; I was not in 

 charge in 1914. 



7781. Similarly in 1915 taking the figure in the profit 

 and loss account for that year the valuation is 

 22,624 19s. 6d.? Yes. 



7782. Your summary of valuation at that period 

 only amounts to 22,444 15s. 6d. ? You are speaking 

 of the separate summary I gave with regard to live 

 stock. 



7783. Yes. That is a difference of 180 4s. Od.? 

 That would be live and dead stock, would it not? 



7784. I do not know how it is made up? I do not 

 understand the difference certainly. 



7785. If you will take the next one for the year 1916 

 there is a difference again. The valuation is 2.'i.~!^<) 

 15s. 6d. and in the summary it amounts to 22,960 4s. 

 6d., a difference of 560 lls. Od. My reason for ask- 

 ing you particularly is that when you come to 1917 

 the figures aro identical and in 1918 and 1919 they 

 are identical also? I uin afraid I cannot explain 

 that. 



7786. Mr. Overman: In going back to the cattle 

 sold in 1918, 7,579, was that a sale of dairy cattle? 

 No, Aberdeen Angus. 



7787. How many did you sell at the sale? 91 or 

 92. 



7788. Do you remember what they averaged? No, 

 I am afraid I cannot tell you now. 



7789. They were fat cattle? No, Aberdeen Angus 

 breeding cattle. 



7790. Did they make anything like 100 apiece? 

 No, I am sure they did not ; I cannot remember in the 

 least what they fetched. 



7791. That accounts for the difference in the 

 numbers, I take it, in 1918, 496 beasts, and in 1919. 

 402 beasts. That is the reason you were short of 

 cattle in 1919? -Yes, that would account for a good 

 deal of the decrease. 



7792. I see the profits on the cattle that year, tak 

 ing the two valuations, amounting to 4,429 12s. lid. 

 made out of cattle that year that is the difference? 

 Yes. 



7793. Really the difference in the two valuations 

 brings it up to a profit of 2,918 7s. 9d., which really 

 amounts to what you made that year? Yes. 



7794. You have answered that question : you said 

 in a way the profit was due to the special sale of 

 pedigree cattle? Yes, I think it is partly. 



7795. In taking your valuation can you tell me how 

 your valuer values your implements? Does he take 

 them piece by piece or at the same price as last year 

 with a deduction for depreciation? The implements 

 on the farm are valued every three years in detail, and 

 every year at the annual valuation they are de- 

 preciated ; we supplv him with figures of the imple- 

 ments we bought that year which are added in at 

 rost price, and the remainder of the implements are 

 depreciated by the valuers. 



7796. How much, can you tell me? No, I do not 

 know ; they do not toll me. 



7797. The same with the maohinsry, I suppose? 



yi. 



7798. All the estate work which is done by the 

 horses is charged in thin account, is it not? Yes. 



7799. That amounts to a very large sum coming to 

 the farm ? Yes. 



7800. Of oaurse, that is an item which the ordinary 

 farmer would not have on the side of receipts, would 

 he? He ought to if he kept books of course, if he 

 has the opportunity. 



7801. Yes, but he would not have the opportunity 

 in the ordinary course? No, he would not have such 

 an opportunity in the ordinary way very likely, but 

 if he did get it he ought to show it. 



7802. You cannot by your books in any way tell 

 us how you arrive at the working days of the horses 

 you only arrive at it by inference from the 

 enquiries you have made, I take it? Yes. 



7803. I must put it to you : I think there must bo 

 more than six days of frost in each year? Possibly, 

 but if we can get horses out for half a day we do it 

 rather than keep them standing in the stables. 



7804. Last autumn we had a continuous wet tims 

 from October until January when our horses were 

 certainly not at work half the time on arable land? 

 Yes. I see we had only 387 in last year for that. 

 Perhaps the frost accounted for it. 



7805. Mr. liea : In your valuation it is stated that 

 the valuer took the stock that was going to be 

 marketed soon at market prices? Yes. 



7806. The others he took at a sort of standardised 

 value? Yes. 



7807. The same system would prevail in the earlier 

 years, I presume? Yes. 



7808. So that there would be a fair proportion of 

 rise? Yes, I think the valuation has been very con- 

 servative ; I had a long talk with the valuer about it 

 the other day, as I told you. 



7809. Everything has been raised in proportion 

 from the earlier years, so that it will in fact show 

 what has been the actual depreciation? Yes. I do 

 not think the depreciation has been anything in com- 

 parison to the actual increase in value except in 

 the case of stock which are absolutely ready for 

 market. 



7810. The other stock will have been raised in some 

 sort of way ; they will not have been kept at the same 

 figures ? No. If you look back to 1914 you will see 

 the beasts are put at an average price of 14 guineas, 

 a-nd if you look at 1919 you will see the average price 

 for beasts is 19 guineas, that is, a 5-guiuea rise. 



7811. In 1916 there was a good rise of price. I 

 take it that your cattle are actually valued at the 

 market price of the day, and that the cattle are 

 not the same from year to year. These are stock 

 that you are buying, and they may be younger or 

 older, taking one year with another? No; we breed 

 practically all our own stock. 



7812. These are mostly home-breed cattle, are they? 

 Practically all of them. 



7813. So that they will nearly all be of the same 

 age and more or less of the samo quality? Yes. 



7814. Mr. Henderson asked you how much land had 

 been broken up owing to the guarantee, and you 

 replied that nothing had been broken up owing to 

 the guarantee, but that land had been broken up 

 owing to the orders to plough up from the Executive 

 Committee ? Yes. 



7815. That sounds rather as if the guarantee was 

 put on for the sake of inducing farmers to plough up 

 their land. Is that your interpretation of it? I am 

 afraid it hardly is. I think my interpretation of 

 the guarantee is more that the Government were 

 frightened of labour or of the Labour Party than 

 that they were anxious about the farmers' needs. 



7816. Is it not rather that the Government saw that 

 it was necessary for the safety of the country both 

 now and in the future that more corn should be 

 grown, and they put pressure on the farmers to grow 

 up, and having done so they felt that they could not 

 in justice press farmers to grow corn unless they 

 guaranteed them against a very severe loss seeing 

 that there was also a guarantee of wages? The 

 Government guaranteed wages, but I think it was 

 the Selborne Committee's report which suggested that 

 if the Government guaranteed wages they should also 

 guarantee the farmer a productive price for his pro- 

 duce? 



7817. Yes, hut the whole thing hinged together, 

 did it not? When the Selborno Committee was 

 sitting I do not think the submarine menace 

 although I believe Lord Selborno felt and anticipated 



F 1 



