23

1.—6

45. Mr. Montgomery.] If the writings-off are included in the £3,095,799, they are some of them writings off private accounts, and I want to know how far these losses have occurred after the accounts were taken over ?—To a large extent the losses arising during the time the estates belonged to private accounts could be ascertained. 46. Could you furnish us with a return ?—No, I could not do that. 47. You can give us no estimate to show the amounts written off private accounts during the currency of those accounts —the totals in block ? —I think that could be got. I think the totals could be got from the books. 48. Would you kindly have that statement prepared for examination on a subsequent day ?— Do I understand the question to be this : You would like to know the total amount- of writings-off from private accounts—distinguishing that from the total writings-off, the balance we assume to be losses that arise apart from the private accounts ? 49. That is so ; showing part of the losses made by the bank itself—caused, for instance, by the mistake (if it was a mistake) that was made in issuing the guaranteed shares all at once, and having the money lying idle ?—I would not like to express an opinion on that point. 50. Did the money lie idle after the issue of the guaranteed shares ?—For a time some did. £1,000,000 we were obliged to keep idle for a time, because the investments that were used for that money were subject to the approval of the Colonial Treasurer for the time being; and it was impossible to invest so large a sum of money in a short time. 51. Can you say what amounts lay idle for a period of six months ?—I am not able to say that. 52. I understand you to say that a considerable amount lay idle after the money was raised for various causes ?—No doubt that was so. 53. You have said in your evidence that the sum of £1,531,951 was written off in 1896? —1895--and 1896. 54. Does that include amounts written off before the banking legislation of last year?—No; that includes only the provision that became possible, and that was used after the legislation of 1895. 55. I wish to call your attention to an apparent discrepancy in the amount. The amount the Committee reported as requiring writing off was £1,340,468, and it appears that £1,531,951 was written off. What caused the discrepancy—l am including the contingent fund ? —I am not able togive you the particulars, but the accountant or the Auditor of the bank would give them to you. There were some modifications which arose and caused the difference you refer to, but the particulars of them I am not able to give you. 56. How do you find out what amounts have been written off from year to year? —I am not able to say what is the usual custom of banks in the matter. My experience relates only to the writings-off shown in the balance-sheet of the 31st March, 1896. 57. Is there any way of discovering from the balance-sheets the provision made for bad and doubtful debts ?—I think not. 58. What about the contingency fund of £200,000 ? Is that a general cover for bad debts, or a special cover against certain debts?—A general cover. 59. A general cover for specific debts—debts a, b, c, and d ?—Yes. 60. What I mean is, could you include accounts which you had not previously included under the contingency fund?—l think not. The contingent fund is distinctly provided for debts which may arise out of past transactions in connection with accounts for which the present directors have no responsibility. 61. My point is, is the fund to provide for specific accounts a, b, c, and d, or is it for all the accounts of the bank ?—I do not think the directors have determined that point. 62. How did they estimate the contingency fund required ? —We formed our opinion by a careful valuation of a number of accounts that might or might not require provision when they came to be determined. 63. Then you might, instead of writing off the £54,000 for bad and doubtful debts out of profit and loss, have written it off from the contingency fund?—We might have done so, except as to an amount of perhaps £1,300 or £1,400, which were the bad debts determined during the year, and provision for which was not contemplated when the contingency fund was provided. 64. Did you contemplate the rest of the £54,000 as losses for which the contingency fund was provided ?—Yes; it was meant to provide for nearly the whole of what had become determined during the year. 65. Was the contingency fund meant to include those debts which you considered bad and doubtful ?—I am not able to say more, because there was no intention at the time that the contingency fund should be set aside for any particular and special cases. We, in going through the accounts, came to the conclusion that further provision would possibly —I may say probably—be necessary. 66. Did you not state before the Committee last year that you had discovered by investigations that £200,000 would be required for certain debts—to provide against them ? —I think it is very likely, as I said before, that it would be required. 67. I want to know whether that was said before the Committee last year ?—I have not a distinct recollection of making the statement, but it is likely that I did. That was, and is now, my opinion. 68. Then you said that you have written off about £30,000 from the contingency fund, and about £54,000 from the profit and loss account, when all could have come from the contingency fund. How was it that one loss was charged to the profit and loss and one to the contingency fund ?—The amount by which the contingency fund is reduced was taken at the time the final arrangements were made for writing-off as arranged last year. Practically, it was taken and is included in the writings-off of 1895 and 1896. 69. They were practically written-off at that time ? —Since that time the contingency fund has been undisturbed.