The Poberty Bay Perald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1166, 6 November 1880, Page 2

The Poberty Bay Perald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1880.

Three communications appear in our advertising columns of this evening's issue — two "of which are signed by the Secretary,, and the third by the Chairman of the " South Pacific Petroleum,. Company," at Sydney. Tlie Chairman, in his public notification, places before the Gisborne shareholders all information concerning the position off- o the- Company. The Board- at Sydney, considering the condition of the Company so promising, have placed 5000 of the unallotted shares in the market at a premium of one shilling per share. The Board have not thought it desirable to establish an office in Gisborne, as the Directors desire to keep down expenses to a minimum. They also do not consider a Registry Office at Gisborne necessary. ; " The Company's shares being nearly all sold the office would only be for the advantage of speculators in sfcobk." The 5000 shares placed in the market at a shilling premium will only be open for one month from the 27tH October. Reference is made to Mri "W. CIiARKE as to his connection with the Company. We think the Board a't' Sydney has offered a gratuitous and unnecessary insult to Mi*. Clarke, by advertising that it does not approve of the actions of that gentleman for having exceeded his instructions. This is a very vague charge indeed. The Board does not say in ip7ta,t or wlien Mr. Clarke exceeded 'his instructions. Probably Mr. Clarke does not approve of the actions of the Board, but he does not publish tliis to the world. If the Directors have a complaint to make against Mr. Clarke, why do they not state, the. nature of it.. The charge is a very unfair one, and we look to Mr. Clarke 'to reply to it.- The second charge is that Mr. Clarke never held the appointment of Managing .DireptoiY.. but proceeded from Sydney to Gisborne to carry out specific instructions, Well, we are not; awaie thkt Mr. Clarke ever stated tha.t he was Managing Director. The shareholders in Sydney sent this gentleman over to manage the starting of the works, and he started them. I£- - riot ■■" nominally he was virtually the Managing Director, notwithstandiugTrthatJ some one in Sydney may have usurped the position. The s thiyd ? fourth and fifth charges are' simply sheer nonsense. What need" is .there to say that Mr.

Clarke bas received payment for his services. Mr. Clarke has not stated anything to the contrary. As to his haying -no authority from the Board tb act on behalf of the Company, this cannot be true, else why was he sent from Sydney to Gisborne to open up the workings. There is something -very unfair towards Mr. Clarke in the Board's advertisement headed with a " Notice." The Board may say what it likes, but the Gisborne shareholders intend to be lepresented in Gisborne, and all the Sydney Board may say to contrary will not prevent this being carried out, as carried it should be • and further, there must be a Registry book for the transfer of shares. What is it to the Sydney directors if the shareholders do speculate in shares, they are not speculating with Sydney shareholders' money. Of the sixty thousand shares- issued, nearly thirty t/iousand are in New Zealand hands at this hour. Therefore, Sydney must not be allowed to have all its own way, and local shareholders to hear and see, but say nothing.