PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 146, 16 March 1921, Page 5

PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

SHAREHOLDERS CLAIM LARGE SUM

FROM DIRECTORS.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Auckland, March 15.

The action tn which certain' shareholders of the Dominion Portland Cement Company have called upon certain directors of the company to show cause why they should not contribute .£190.000, in consequence of alleged misfeasance and alleged breaches of trust while acting as directors, was continued before Mr. Justice Sim in the Supreme Court to day. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., on behalf of the plaintiffs, concluded bis address this morning. Counsel dealt with the affairs of the company at length, and criticised the actions of the directors.

Mr. M. Myers, by arrangement with the other defending counsel, addressed the Court first on behalf of his client, Heathcote B. Williams. One significant fact, he said, that had probably come under His Honour’s notice was that the plaintiffs did not include amongst their number a single commercial man. Although there were the names of many commercial men and business men in the share list, which contained hundreds of names, it had been left to two sheenfarmers, a medical practitioner, a solicitor, and a baronet (who, he believed, wns also a sheep-farmer) to commence these proceedings. Why was there not a commercial ninn among them? The reason was not far to seek. Any commercial man of standing and of any exnerience knew and appreciated the difficulty with which these unfortunate directors had to contend during the greater part of the company’s history. Ffe referred to the period beginning with tht* outbreak of war, and raid thnt a commercial man w'th experience of the Inst few years would know thnt the directors were not to blame for whnt happened, and thai they were the unfortunate victims of circumstances. That was shown by n report on the position made by n committer of shareholders, easiness men. appointed in March. 1917. It was w"ll known (I,sf many companies had failed ito achieve success, and had lost all their capital without any blame being attachable to the director”. Plaintiffs could not succeed unless and until thev were able to s'mw that the loss of which thev complained was due tn the acbi of misfearance. which thev alleged. Counsel proccc-’cd to renlv to the. case for the pinintiffs in detail. The caw. was again adjourned.