( To the Editor of the Otaoo Daily TimksJ

Sm—Tho decisions of the local Appeal Court yesterday, are,worthy of the atten tion, of,tho citizens. The appellants were two well known old residents, namely—Mr J. H. Harris and Mr W.H. Cutten.j Both tbe appellants contended that tho unlet portions of their lauds posseisod no value. This position the Bench, to a consider able extent, confirmed, by reductions in several instances, and particularly in the case of a quarter acre of land, No. 8, block XVI, situate at a'distance of about 250 feet ftom tho Octagon, and having a frontage of 100 feet to Moray Place East, tho yearly value of which, by their judg ment, they reduced to the magnificent sum of ono shilling! ! ••*,*

Nearly one half of Mr Harris's property, which comprised, at first, about one twentieth part of tho whole city, reiiinius unsold or unlet, and consists generally of subdi visional allotments, each being about a fourth part of the original quarter acre sections. These subdivisional allotments are, most of them, very similar to each other,' and, it appears, wero valued by the City Valuators, at IA and L3 each, yearly value, accordingly sis they fronted a public or i>rivnte street. During the present year, it would appear, that Mr Harris has sold some half dozen of thoso remaining allotments at an average price of about L44 each, and let a greater number from L5 to L7los each, of 'yearly rent. Of course he canmbt deny or object to the valuation made of those ao disposed of, but he does deny and ob j jwt lo any valuation of t ose which, for the time being, remain on liishaiids. Ac cording to tliis appellant's argument, a thing has no value until *it is sold, lert, Ist, or disposed bf. What would!a mer chant say to - this - system of'valuing ap-.'" | plied to" his ■ Block J Mr Harris forgets, ! and tho Bench failed to see, that the ap pellant holds and has been holding these city lands as a continual source of annual profit and income, biking them a3 a whole. 