1.—6

28

189. Then you would only say " No " by hearsay ?—That is so. 190. Were you present at the interview between the Government and the bank directors?—l was present at the interview. 191. Then you know of verbal communications and consultations. Have you a diary to refer to as to the dates ?—No ; but I could find out the dates when the directors had the interview with the Government in relation to the bank's need for assistance. 192. Will you take a note of as many dates of meetings with the Government as possible prior to the Committee meeting and subsequently ?—Yes. 193. To your knowledge, have you or any other director furnished any member of the Government with any information with regard to any private accounts ?—No; not to my knowledge. 194. Are you now furnishing the Government with information for this inquiry — the directors?—l am not aware of anything of that sort. I have no knowledge of that being done. 195. Am I right in saying that the bank is entirely free from Government or official interference, and is not influenced in any way officially ?—Absolutely. There is no interference on the part of the Government with the hank. 196. Or by any Minister?—No ; and there has never been any interference. 197. With regard to the Estates Company, you are an attorney of the Estates Company ? —Yes. [At this stage the Committee adjourned.]

Saturday, Bth August, 1896. Examination of William Booth, director of the Bank of New Zealand, continued. 1. Mr. Montgomery.] You recollect, Mr. Booth, that you stated yesterday that you thought you could produce a return showing the writings-off from the private accounts as distinct from the losses of the bank. Have you got that return ? —I have got here what, I think, will show what you want. [Exhibit put in.] 2. You see the various accounts in this. Does that mean that the accounts were still current? —I cannot give you any information beyond what is in the paper there. I understand it to mean that the writings-off connected with the properties —the reduced values on each handed to the Estates Company—is in that amount, and subsequently the writings-off in 1895-96 are represented there. That leaves the writings-off from personal accounts to be the amount stated below. 3. The writings-off of personal accounts are £1,136,262 from 1888 to 1896 ?—Yes. 4. And that includes the sum of £171,136 m the Contingency Fund Account ?—Yes. 5. That may be written off, or it may not; it is not yet written off?— No. 6. Passing on to the Estates Company, you are an attorney of that company ?—Yes. 7. I do not quite understand the meaning of attorney —are there directors?— The head office of the company is in London still, and I am simply one of the attorneys representing the company here, along with the Hon. W. Johnston and the President of the Bank, Mr. Watson. 8. Do I understand that the Estates Company is. still managed from London, nominally ? — Nominally. 9. Who are the directors in London—the London board?—l do not think I can give you the names from memory. 10. Will you make a note of it ?—Yes. 11. lam correct in saying there are directors in London? —I think there are three. 12. Do they give instructions to the attorneys here ?—No, they do not interfere at all. 13. Then, what functions do the directors in London have ?—The company is still in existence as a company with all the responsibility of a company. 14. Can you tell me what part the directors take in it? Do they issue balance-sheets?— Yes ; they issue the balance-sheets after they have got supplied with information from the attorneys here. 15. Are the balance-sheets usually issued here? —No; we cannot issue them. 16. Do they issue the balance-sheets ?—Yes. 17. Are there such things as shareholders' meetings in connection with the Estates Company ?— There are only nominal meetings. There are a few nominal shareholders. . 18. The shares are all held by the Bank of New Zealand? —Practically all. 19. Is there any object in still retaining a London board ? —Not now. It is not intended to retain it. 20. Is it intended, therefore, to make the present attorneys directors here, or some persons directors here ?—Not directors, but liquidators. I cannot go into the details of the arrangements further than to say that, as soon as possible, it is the intention of the bank that the Estates Company shall be wound up. 21. The Estates Company is only in voluntary liquidation? —It is not in liquidation at present. 22. Is it to be placed in liquidation ? —Yes. 23. How is that to be done ?—I am not able to give you the process, but as the shareholders requiring to be consulted in London are only nominal shareholders, there will be no diffculty, when we are prepared to do it, in placing it in liquidation. 24. Will it be done during the next current year? —I am not able to say that; it will be done as soon as it can be. 25. Then the company as a company still exists, notwithstanding the legislation?—lt does. 26. As separate from the Bank of New Zealand, and as separate from the Assets Realisation Board?— Yes. 27. When were you first appointed attorney? —Soon after I became a director of the Bank of New Zealand.