Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-18
The assessors regarded that as

The assessors regarded that as g
whole and you will regard it as a
whole. But of course you will have tC
! divide it into parts and consider the
value of those parts with reference tt
| the value of the whole.
If you should divide this property a.
you would if the parts were the prop.
erty Of different owners, you would de-
| termine the value of the whole. for the
whole is worth no more than the sun
| of its parts. 1t may be that being g
unit it will have a "going concern
| value that makes it more valuable.
Mr.. Morang divided these and so die
the witnesses for the plaintiff-divided
this property into land, buildings, ma.
chinery and water power.
HIS total estimate was $1,O89, 900. The
valuation of the assessors was $1,O44,.
900. Merely for comparison of the diff
ferent items of the different experts, ]
have reduced Mr.. Morang's figures
down AZ per cent. Where Mr.. Morang
values the machinery at $4,000 the
valuation of the assessors would BE-
$453, 900.
So far as valuing this water power
goes, of course there have been several
cases where the dam was owned by
two towns and there have been per-
picking questions as to how it should be
valued. OF course running water cam
not be valued but the running water
may increase the value Of the water
power. There are questions as to
where it should be valued, whether
with the mill, with the dam or what
part should be placed on the different
parts.
You have none Of these questions.
owned by one concern.
You will remember that Mr.. Morang
made up the value of this machinery
and then allowed for the depreciation
and reached the value of $519,955. He
says that that is not the right way.
He says mill men think it best to find
the first cost and then divide it by two.
One witness said that this mill should
spend $50. 900 on new machinery every
year. This would mean complete re-
newal every u years. There is no mill
with which we have any acquaintance
which renews its machinery every II
years. On the average New England
mill Mr.. MOrang's method applies.
Mr. MOrang has told you about how
he wrote around and found out the
first costs. The only other witness
who spoke of first costs was Mr..
Walonsley and he disputes but one
item.
The item in dispute is pickerS which
were to cost $4,000. 1t is claimed that
Mr.. Eaton has told you that there
was strife between the manufacturers
of these pickers and it may be that
Mr.. Pratt was correct and that he did
get them way down at that time.
Macarthur testified that new ma
chinery ought to cost $l1 per spindle,
Mr.. MOrang's estimate was only 80 per
spindle. 1t is difficult to estimate the
cost of machinery. but there is little
discrepancy between the valuations by
these two men.
You will find that Mr.. McArthur's
estimate on the machinery and mis-
cellaneous items was $434,000, only $685.
600 different from Mr.. Morang, on this
the largest in the mill and only $4,000
between Mr. Macarthur and the asses
sOrs.
You will notice that Mr.. Pennelrs
estimate was $43S,OOO, the assessors
s453. 600, and MIR. Morang's $4,000.
There is only a difference of $4,000 be-
tween Mr.. Pencil and the assessors
and S34, 900 between Mr.. Pencil and
Mr.. Morang.
I think that these men could value
this large item no nearer than that,
IL. per cent.
I think that that difference arises on
account of the fact that the estimates
were made at different times. Mr..
McArthur's estimate was made as of
1904.
Baker-That is all explained in the
testimony.
Williamson-It is not explained in the
testimony. 1 will read it.
Mr.. Macarthur said that he made his
investigation last March or April
based my calculations on a list and
what 1 saw. Mr.. Pratt gave him a
list of machinery and probably the list
as of 1904 when the litigation began.
Mr., Macarthur came down here with
out a detailed list and that l submit Is
not a proper method as it does not per-
nit of proper cross-eXamination. We
didn't get his schedule until after he
had testified. That is his own valua-
ton under his own hand as of 1904.
Here is a list of the new machinery
put IN between April l. 1904. and April
| /, 1905 You will remember in 1904 they
made extensive repairs i'm this mill.
Reading from Mr.. Pratts testimony,
Mr.. Williamson showed that the mill
was shut down from July until Novem-
Der, also the extent of the repairs to
the machinery. The new machinery
cost $32,828 and the machinery in the
machine shop must have cost $1,000 or
about $4,000.
If you take Mr.. McArthur's estimate
as of 1904 and add to it the cost of the
new machinery and subtract from MIR.
Morang's the new knot tying machine,
they will be SO near together that II
will almost seem as if there was col
fusion between them.
Mr. Pennell very plainly had 1904 list
and was estimating from that list ex-
cept as regard to the steam plant. You
will remember that in Mr.. Pennell
letter he said:
Your machine shop is modern and