THE LOAN AND MERCANTILE.

Oxford Observer, Volume V, Issue V, 14 April 1894, Page 2

THE LOAN AND MERCANTILE.

In his examination before Justice Sir R. Williams concerning the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Comj?any, Mr Falconer Larkworthy said that in 1890 he reported that there, were further deficits and that the reserves were exhausted, but the Board took no notice of the matter, Losses amounting to £348,000 appeared on the balance-sheet as an asset; and the statement of profits presented in 1889 included interest on that sum, although it had not been paid. He added that only the Right Hon A. J. Mundella, one of the directors, supported him in pro posing that an independent inspector should be employed to inspect the Company's propertiesand to report direct to the London Board.

(jontinuing his evidence before Justice. Sir R. Williams, Mr Falconer Larkworthy described certain statements niade % the Hon W.- Snielsf of Victoria, in his speech at the London .meeting, as grossly iuntrue,fand y said that Mr Shiels was a friend- of Mr: D.: Elder, j ?the * General Manager of the Company in Australia. In- reply to some severe questions put by the Judge, the witness^dmitted-that ,ha<i Mr- SMels'lcQowff4he d #ruei facts of' the case he would not have spoken- as ;he;4id; and also admitted that he" himself had' now confirmed the statements contained in' Mr Shiel's Ispeecn to' which exception had been tak^n. He *saip^ j;hat|he $jd npt consider^ it his. duty to v remoa:rsftrate fcs the tiikeV, i i£n . rgjuj]^ to another; auestioni Mr woifehy^ said h^jhaa^otla|qui- j esced in the balance-sheet at the same meelingr bsidyfe^ss£ ds& did, that the reserves-would, coyer the Melbourne deficit of £480,000, which had not then '

been revealed. Counsel complained of the manner in wfiich the gave his evidence, taking particular exception to his hesitancy in answering, and his inability to remember certain things. The Judge, urged the witness to be perfectly candid in giving his evidence, ..', Mr Larkworthy said that his salary Was increased in 1890 although his authority and duties were dimished, owing to Mr Paul, the London manager, and Mr Thomas Russell assuming more control. Personally, he had dissented frpm, this arrangement. In reply to a question, he said that he did not x6mernber approving of a certificate depriving the debentureholders of securkv-