APPEAL BY MERCHANT.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16143, 22 February 1918, Page 4

APPEAL BY MERCHANT.

THE LAID LAW CASE

The case of Robert A. Laidlaw, cf the firm of Laidlaw, Leeds, Ltd., was again before the First Auckland Military Service Board on Monday. At previous hearings of the case it was shown that appellant is a married roan with one child, and is the last remaining son in the family, his two brothers, who were department manager* in the business, having volunteered in the early stages of the war. The younger brother. Lieutenant J. R. Laidlaw, R.X.A.S., was killed two years ago while flying at Hendon, England, and the other brother—Lieutenant A. F. Laidlaw—has been for several months on active service with the New Zealand infantry in France. "When last before the Board, Mr Laidlaw said he had no wish to shelter behind the fact that lie was the last remaining son in the family. He was perfectly willing to render personal service, and were it not for the heavy financial responsibilities he was bearing and from which he could not now free himself, he certainly would not be appealing. Seven out of the eight people who had lent him their money .had advanced it without security of an» .kind other than their confidence in his integrity and ability, and appellant pointed cut that as these obligations were entered into before, the war, his first duty was to honourably discharge them. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS. Mr Laidlaw said the difficulties in obtaining a substitute were twofold. His creditors, who had lent such large sums of money, representing, in most instances, all they had, could hardly be expected to entrust it to an untried man. and if they withdrew it the business would have to close down, which would mean heavy losses to a great many of those concerned. For instance, tie said, if his staff on the average took six weeks to find new positions, as over £400 a week was paid to them in wages, they would lose £2400 in the process of finding other employment. The factories dependent on the firm to take their outputs would also lose heavily in the _ dislocation which would follow the withdrawal of the firm'.s support. But one of tl.e greatest difficulties would be that enormous orders had been placed in England and America, and contracts signed for goods to be delivered right through 1918. In a great many ! instances these goods bore the firm'.s imprint, so that manufacturers would not- accept cancellation. Appellant pointed out that the only other solution was to find a man who had such experience as would justify his creditors in agreeing to leave their money with him, but the difficulty arose that there is no other business conducted entirely by mail in Australasia. and to put an untried man in l is place would be courting disaster. Even if an experienced, man could be found, the fact that he was capable would presuppose that he was already holding a responsible position, and what intelligent man would leave a permanent position in which he had proved, himself a success to take on a temporary one of uncertain duration until after the war. and in which he had had no experience ? FIRM'S EMPLOYEES OX SERVICK. Mr Laidlaw stated that his firm was affected by the war in a peculiar way that applied to no other business of a similar size. Having been only cigtit years in building up their present business, they were manned almost entirely by young men and were therefore losing a far greater proportion of their men, but especially of their managers, than any other firm. Already 3~> men had enlisted, including five department managers, and eight out cf the nine managers left were eligible for military service, one of the eight having already been ballottcd and passed. In this connexion he was faced with a very grave difficulty. He £•;:'<] he must of necessity be loyal to those managers who had gone and were still to go bv guaranteeing them their positions on their return, and this nat-ir-, ally greatly increased the difficulties' of finding substitutes to take their places, as the positions could be offered J only temporarily, and capable men ( were not willing to leave permanent | positions to take temporary ones." I At the hearing yesterday Mr H. | Buckleton, manager of the Bank of New Zealand, submitted a lengthy sworn statement, in which he said he had known the business of Laidlaw. Leeds from its commencement, ?.nd from his intimate knowledge he <»uid say with assurance that Mfr Laidlavr was absolutely essential to the future success of the firm, and that under present conditions he did not think -»r Laidlaw could find a satisfactory substitute. Two of the firm's department manflgers, put in the witness-box, bore clear testimony to the same effect, one of them pointing out how essential Mr Laidlaw was to the preparation of ihe firm's 500-page catalogue, which occupies three months of his tame, and represents a work which no outsider could, possibly undertake without years of experience. . Major Conlan said he had given this appeal much thought and had tried to get evidence that would enable me Department to ect the man, but_u«

had been unable to do so. Whatever exemption was rivpn, lie hoped the Board would make it clear that it'was' not £iven to appellant personally, hut to his creditors and others who would suffer if tho business were closed. \:- t The Board granted the -appellant/ exemption sine die.