THE NEW ZEALAND LEATHER COMPANY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2145, 14 November 1885, Page 2

THE NEW ZEALAND LEATHER COMPANY.

A case of some interest to those who deal with promoters of public companies occurred in the Resident Magistrates Court at Wellington on Thursday, when Mr J. Chantrey Harris, the registered proprietor of the New Zealand Times, sued the directors of the New Zealand Leather Company for £5419s 9d, alleged to be due for advertising. The Company has a history of its own, and recently went into liquidation. In place of dividends, there were steady losses. The evidence went to show that the Secretary of the Company and several of the Directors had ordered the insertion of a number of advertisements relating to a, period when it was proposed to wind up the Company and form a new onp, which was to include the extensive tannery business of Mr Tyer, The negotiations fell through, and the directors then began to shirk their liability. : Hence the action. No decision having as yet been given, we cannot comment on the legal aspect of the claim, but from a moral point of view we think that the directors must have had a good deal of assurance to allow the matter to come into Court at all. Mi-Travers, who appeared for. Messrs McTavish and T, Kennedy McDonald took occasion to explain that his clients had no wish to keep Mr Harris out of his money, but there were other liabilities, amounting to £6OO or £7OO, for which they wbuld render themselves liable if they admitted this, In other words, he admitted that the money -was owing, but that, while inclined to pay the one, they were not prepared to look upon the other in the same light, As a matter of fact, expenses amounting to about £7OO were incurred in attempting to float the company, and those who had full faith in the bona fides of the directors are now asked to lose that amount, The commercial morality that is here shown is something extra-" ordinary. We shall watch the development of the case with interest. In tli9 meantime, promoters and provisional directors of companies must be looked upon witii suspicion and disttust.