T'us whole of the Waipori water was leased for several years to the Tailings * Com-, pany for £550 a year, while the" profits of the other -water race were well within £1000. These two were put in the market and disposed of, the Tuapeka water race for £6500 and the Wai pori for £4500. This is to say the two proper-. ties that were represented to bring in a net profit of £6000 a year were disposed of for £11,000. Why, this transaction in itself affords conclusive testimony of the clumsy system of representation which the man pnisued\irj dealing with the English investors- Mr Brown, as might be expected, denies that wherever possible only the richest ; patches of the ground were worked. Why then did they run away from the tailings and-commence to wash away the unworked;road line? The fact is, no sooner was one'good patch worked out than they flew with all speed to another; they worked double shifts, and they worked.on the Sunday until the police .'authorities warned them off. Mr Brown alleges as the reason why the mine did not yield the £50,000 a year clear profit, which he promised the shareholders, was that he had not been!provided with working capital. InalettertotheLondonßoardofDirec tors, read at a general meeting of that body on the 18th April 1888, Mr Brown, as general manager, stated: "I am keeping expenses down as low as possible. At the very most £1000 wili, I think, be all that we shall require." And the £1000 de manded was sent out. There is not from the beginning of this ill-starred business up to the present moment a single person who trusted or confided in Mr J. C. Brown, but has since found reason to upbraid him and challenge his veracity. By the London directors and the .London share holders his conduct has been stigmatised in the boldest and most outspoken language."1 He has been charged with misrepresentation by Sir Robert Stout in the plainest terms, and by the miners who employed him to place their property on the London market. It now only remains to be -proved that -he -has convicted himself of misrepresentation, and that I shall have Very, little difficulty in doing. As a further reason for the £50,000 a year clear profit not being forthcoming he says in his letter, "We had new machinery to purchase and. 