OPUNAKE NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING COMPANY, Ltd.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 139, 1 November 1895, Page 2

OPUNAKE NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING COMPANY, Ltd.

At the annual meeting of the Opunake Newspaper and Printing Company, Limited, called for Thursday, October 18th, there was not a quorum present, so that in accordance with the Act it had to stand adjourned till Thursday, October 25th, at the same time and place. At the adjourned meeting again there was not a quorum, so that it now stands adjourned sine die, and the directors of the past year continue in office for the eusuing twelve months. The fact that twenty shareholders, the number required for a quorum, did not roll up to the meeting is fair evidence that the great majority of them are perfectly satislied with having brought about the establishment of a newspaper in the district. As there appears to be a slight misapprehension in the minds of a few, we may offer a few words of explanation as to the position. One or two shareholders who have invested £1 12s Gd each in the company appear to think that for that magnificent sum they have secured a real live going concern, consisting of a plant, editor, compositors, and “ devil,” which and whom they can, with a waive of I heir omnipotent hands, cause to dance to any tune they wish to pipe. Such is not the case. The company was formed to purchase a plant, and when bought it was to be leased at a rental representing G per cent on the cost. As long as the lessee paid the rent he was at liberty to use the plant for whatever purpose he thought lit. Although it might bo taken for granted it would be used for the publication of a newspaper, there was nothing binding on him to so use it. He is only bound to pay the rout, and the balance-sheet, which has been duly audited, shows that lie has done so. Therefore his position in regard to the company is perfectly clear, lie having fulfilled his part of the contract to the loiter. \Vhut the profits or business of the newspaper may be is no concern whatever of the company’s, so long as the company receives the rent. The balance-sheet discloses that the company has received G per cent on £330, such being the cost of plant and floating the company, whereas the total amount

received from the shareholders is shown to he £265. The difference between what the plant cost and what has been received represents the liabilities of the company, and interest paid on part of the liabilities. If all the shareholders had paid their full amount of calls, when the rent was paid on its di e date, it would have been available for a dividend representing 6 per cent, but as they were not all paid it went to reduce the company’s liability. If steps are taken to forfeit all shares on which calls are unpaid, then every shareholder’s interest —who has fully paid up his calls —will be increased in value by that amount, and the plant consequently becomes the property of a fewer number. Whether the calls arc paid or remain unpaid in no way affects the lessee, as he has already paid his rent computed on the total amount of calls, paid and unpaid, necessary to liquidate the cost of floating the company and purchasing the plant. We give this explanation as we have received information that two or three shareholders have been circulating false statements of the company’s affairs, and connecting the business of the newspaper with them. It is unreasonable to expect to have a number of men without one or more black sheep amongst them, but it is extremely pleasing to us to know that there ace so few here.