V''Z\*M L)t !T$ the rpal -itifo nf ti> ;> **c m'ght add that had fully disclosed to bank' s affairs been more than it wls sum' the Shareholders' Committee nad no X* ?D I 5 mouths a 6° they wonld have „„..." "/Kruative but to report that in conse lost rf o( half of the bank>s ca P'tal bein S 'hen j,tHj(pD would have to be wound-up under the *°ffii clause of the deed of settlement. He Ayffald goiu to details and explain as JJaortly as possible how such a large Slum as £300,000, in addition to £800,000 which was provided for by the Shareholders' Committee, was now required. The accounts themselves which proved that could be sub mitted to a small committee. There were over 100 branches and agencies connected with the bank; and, in anticipation of the appointment of the Shareholders' Committee, managers were specially instructed by circular to prepare cer tain accounts of the banks' assets as on 31st March ISBS. In this form No. 1 was to contain all good sound accounts and business, giving names and amounts with remarks, &c. The certificate attached to this was :—" I certify that the foregoing are all good and recoverable, and represent sound business." That certi ficate was on every account to be signed by the manager, countersigned by the inspector, and the figures were certified by the accountant No. 2 and No. 3 were bad and doubtful accounts. No. 4 were accounts in course of liquidation. The full details and estimates and probable deficit or loss in each case were given with the following certificate:—" I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct list of operative and doubtful accounts at this branch, and that the probable out-turn has been arrived at after careful examination, and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief a fair and trust worthy estimate." These were also signed by every manager, countersigned .by the inspector, and the figures were certified to by the account-

Mr Murray: If you please, Mr Buckley, what inspector do you refer to ? I was inspector at that time, and I did not sign them. Mr Buckley said he referred to different inspectors. The total amount resulted in a de ficit of about £750,000 or £800,000. 