ABSTRACT
We have had occasion during the last few months to call attention to one or two instances of auditors being blamed for confining the scope of their investigation to the mere verification of the accuracy of the bookkeeping and of the questions of principle connected with the preparation of accounts; and, on the other hand, there have been cases (of which, perhaps, the most notorious for the moment is the Grand Junction Waterworks case) in which auditors have been blamed for setting up their views in opposition to those entertained by the directors as to the precise amount of information that should be contained in the accounts submitted to the shareholders. A case of a much more satisfactory nature, which lies somewhat between these two, has recently come to our notice, and the result has been so unusual that upon this ground alone it is worthy of a record in these pages. The facts are as follow:
