43

1.—6

293. By whom was the verbal information supplied ? —I believe it was verbal information we had. Ido not think I remember the origin of the information. It came to me after it had been communicated to the other directors. lam not able to say. Mr. Johnston and Mr. Macarthy had some verbal information which they communicated to me. 294. Was that all the information you had in reference to the " C " list —that which you heard from Mr. Johnston and Mr. Macarthy ? —No. We had a good deal of information in the books of the bank itself. 295. I am speaking now of oral information?— There was no special communication about the accounts except what came to me from Mr. Johnston and Mr. Macarthy. 296. You have differentiated the question again. I asked as to special information. I ask you whether you had any information other than that you got from your co-directors with reference to the accounts in the "C " list ? —No ; I had not. 297. Did the communications to you extend to information as to whose accounts were in the " C " list?—We knew whose accounts were in the " C " list. 298. From the books, or from Mr. Johnston or Mr. Macarthy ? —We knew from the books. 299. Were these sums of £20,000 and £5,000, which you have mentioned before, in the " C " list ? —I am not able to say anything about them. 300. Do you mean to say you are ignorant of the fact that they were in the " C " list ?—No; I am not ignorant. 301. Then, you decline to answer whether the two amounts previously mentioned—£2o,ooo and £5,000 —were in the " C " list ? —They have no connection with the " C " list. 302. They have no connection with the " C " list —that is your answer? —That is my answer. 303. What list were they in ?—They had nothing to do with any of the lists. 304. They are entirely outside the lists?— Entirely outside. 305. Was the £20,000 in respect of a parcel of debentures? —I am unable to give any information. 306. Are you unable to tell us from want of knowledge ?—lt is not from want of knowledge, but I am resting on the ruling of the Chairman on Saturday. 307. I must ask that this question be answered : Did this sum of £20,000 have reference to a parcel of debentures ? Mr. Seddon: I rise to a point of order. We cannot go beyond the order of reference No writing-off has been proved. Discussion ensued. 308. The Chairman.] This question as to the £20,000 under discussion, I understand, was not connected with any of the lists " A," " B," " C," or " D " ? —No. 309. You said at the last sitting that, in relation to the £75,000 paid for good-will, that what induced you to take the book-value of the premises was the fact that you had been guaranteed these two sums of £20,000 and £s,ooo?—That was a substantial inducement. 310. Mr. Hutchison.] Have you ever estreated that guarantee in any way ?—I do not see that I can answer the question, because it refers to advances from the bank, and a reply would practically disclose our confidential relations with private accounts. The Chairman: I shall rule that the question is premature. It is irrevelant at the present time. 311. Mr. Hutchison.] What represented the £5,000, Mr Booth?— The position as to the £5,000 is precisely the same as the position of the £20,000. 312. What is that position?—l think it is covered by the ruling the Chairman gave on Saturday. 313. What part of the contract do you say covers these amounts of £20,000 and £5,000 —what clause of the contract has reference to them ?—They had nothing to do with the contract. 314. Nothing to do with the contract of the 18th October?— No. 315. And yet they influenced the amount you paid under that contract? —Yes. At the same time they had nothing to do with the contract beyond what the contract disclosed. 316. What I ask you is, What part of the contract relates to these two amounts of £20,000 and £5,000? Can you point to any part which covers them?— The contract disclosed the fact that we paid for the buildings the book-value. The contract had nothing to do with the details of the discussion between the directors of the two banks which resulted in the acceptance by both parties of that position which was disclosed. 317. You, in your own mind, put the actual value at about £90,000 instead of about £125,000?— Yes ; about that sum. 318. Ninety thousand pounds you treated as the value of the landed property and bank premises ?—We were satisfied that after realising these properties we should make a substantial loss on their book-value. 319. You reckoned them at £90,000 instead of £125,000 ?—We estimated that a deficiency on realisation might arise of from £30,000 to £35,000. 320. Which do you say, £30,000 or £35,000 ? —How can I give exact figures ? That was our estimate, that we might expect to lose £30,000 or £35,000 in realising those properties. 321. You remember mentioning £35,000 before as the probable loss on landed property and bank premises taken over from the Colonial Bank?—l think so. 322. Were not the figures you gave the other day £35,000? —I expected that might be about the loss. 323. What did you say in your evidence?—£3s,ooo. 324. And you did not mention £30,000 before ? You wish to alter your evidence to that extent? You now put £90,000, or £95,000 as the value of the landed properties, and premises?—l do not think it makes much difference in a matter which is so uncertain.