on the basis of the inspector's estimates [unclear: fa] 1888 to 1893, and for this purpose I shall [unclear: for] moment assume that these estimates were [unclear: w] they have been erroneously supposed to be[unclear: d] ments prepared for the purpose of [unclear: writing] bad and doubtful debts. Taking these [unclear: o] ments, and assuming that the sale to the [unclear: Bu] of New Zealand, which took place in [unclear: 1895], taken place at the respective dates of [unclear: t] estimates, and allowing only the same [unclear: price] the goodwill as was paid in 1895 (£75,000), treating the whole of the accounts ([unclear: both] and doubtful) included therein as bad, the [unclear: t] would have liquidated so as to give [unclear: to] holders the returns per share shown in [unclear: the] lowing table, the price of shares at [unclear: the] date being set opposite the returns:— page 3

Date.	Rerurn pershare.			Price at Date.
28th February, 1888	£2	5	8	£2	2	3
3lst August, 1888	2	6	5	2	3	6
28th February, 1889	2	7	1	2	3	3
28th February, 1890	2	4	6	2	2	9
25th March, 1891	2	3	11	2	2	0
25th September 1891	2	5	4	2	1	0
7th April, 1892	2	3	1	2	0	6
1st October, 1893	2	4	5	I	13	0
29th October, 1894	2	3	3	1	5	0
31st May, 1895	2	3	5	0	19	6

The return would, of course, be less the expense of liquidation, which ought under the circumstances to have been exceedingly small. But if the estimates were correct the directors would have had no difficulty in getting £150,000 for the goodwill of the business, and then the return to shareholders and price of shares would have been as follows:—

Date.	Rerurn pershare.			Price at Date.
28th February, 1888	£2	13	2	£2	2	3
3lst August, 1888	2	13	11	2	3	6
28th February, 1889	2	14	7	2	3	3
28th February, 1890	2	12	0	2	2	9
25th March, 1891	2	11	5	2	2	0
30th September, 1891	2	12	10	2	1	0
7th April, 1892	2	10	7	2	0	6
1st October, 1893	2	11	11	1	13	0
29th October, 1894	2	10	9	1	5	0
31st May, 1895	2	10	11	0	19	6