and represented that some poor person or other had applied to him to withdraw a sum of money standing to his credit; but as he could not act as his agent in the matter, and the party could not himself attend at the bank, would Mr. So-and-so oblige him by simply going and receiving the money? These persons, who in all cases were proved to have been innocent agents in the transaction, relied on the character of Buckoll, who of course was highly respected in the town, and would then hand the money over to him according to agreement. Another mode by which, towards the end of his course as actuary, he contrived to appropriate to his own use several large sums of money, was by taking deposits out of course (as in the case of the Dublin actuary, even in the street), and never in any way accounting for them to the bank. What the trustees were doing during all the years these frauds lasted, how the accounts were made to square, and where the system of check was, does not appear. Mr. Hatton, in justice to the trustees, said they "were as efficient as trustees and managers are found to be;" but this kind of evidence is simply a reflection on the general body of such officers, and scarcely any exculpation of the individuals in question. The system of check was clearly inefficient. It is pleasing to add, that in this case the depositors suffered nothing from the frauds. The bank had money in the "separate surplus fund" to the extent of 3,000_l._, and this, with 600_l._ which an unfortunate Guarantee Company had to pay for the defaulting actuary, paid nearly all claims. * * * * *