The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-07-20 00:00:00

A CASE OF IMPORTANCE TO BANKERS.

At the Dal y Assizes, the cause of " Holbrook The
Herby Counnenial Lank (Limited) ' has been beard, and was
a ease of much ituportaoce, as illustrating the clinics of
barkers to their customers.

The plaintiff is an auctioneer and sheriff's officer,
living in Derby, and in the latter end of Msrch last he !
opened an account at the defendant's bank. On
the 4th of April the plaintiff drew a cheque for j
462 16s. iI., payable to the Duke of Devonshire or
bearer. This was paid into Messrs. Crompton's bank ,
in Derby, and by them handed to the defendants, who ,
wrote across it "Present to-morrow," and returned it '
to Messrs. Crompton, at the same time commuuicating ,
with the plaintiff.
The principal question between the parties ego as to
the toms noon which it had been arranged between
the Isintiff and the defendant's manager that the
scent t should be condlicted. Th.. plaintiff swore that
the fag, tement was that he was to draw against cash
and bills to the full extent. and that he was to deposit
deeds of the v.elue £lOO as security for an over.
draught. The defendants' case was that the plaintiff
was to draw against cash, but that bills discounted and
place i to his account were not to be drawn against
until the deeds to the Caine of £4OO were depiJsued at
the bank, and that the plaintiff said he should not re-
quire an overdranght. The plaintiff had not deposited
I the deeds at the time the check was presented. The
amount of cash standing to his credit at the time was
insufficient to pay the check ; but if the discounted
bills which were entered as cash in the account of the
plaintiff were to be added then there would be a suffi.
cent amount to cover the check. Mr. Hutton, after
sending to the plaintiff, saw him and told him the state
of the account, and that, as the deeds had not been de-
posited, he was under the necessity of returning the
cheek. The plaintiff said, "Oh, but the bills have been
discounted." Mr. Hutton said, "list yell have not
deposited the deeds," and the plaintiff raised no further
objection. On the next day the plaintiff brought the
deeds • but on being examined by the solicitor of the
bank they were declared to be defective as securities
for £4OO, and Mr Hutton, after sending several times
to the plaintiff, who could not be found, at length re-
futed the check.
In crose-examination Mr. Hutton said that he knew
some of the plaintiff's bide were doubtful, but the bank
were willing to open an account upon security being
given. Before the check was refused Mr. Hutton had
received information that a bill diseounted by the
batik for the plaintiff would cot be met. The bank
continued to pay cheeks for small amounts drawn by
the plaintiff, even after the refusal of the large cheek
in question.
The deeds which the plaintiff was to have deposited,
and which was stated by the bank's aelieter to be de-
fective, were not produced in court by either party.
His Lordship ruled that the onus of proving that
the securffies were good lay on the plaintiff. The sub-
etantial question for tl:o jury was whether the arrange-
meet between the parties was such that chis,ks were vet
to be dsQ,wn aainat tli6 bills aiiihotmted thatil the deeds

•nght

were deposited. If that was so, Mr. Hutton had a rm.-
to refuse to pay the check until the deeds were deposited,
and as they were deposited on the day after the presenta-
tion of the check, it would be important to know if the
deeds were of value, and that the plaintiff had
failed to prove. But if the plaintiff had a right to
draw against the bills before depositing the deeds he
would be entitled to a verdict. As to damages, it
appeared that the plaintiff had opened an account at
anther bank. and he only asked for nominal damages
and the certificate of the Judge. The action was
brought to try the piestion of right to draw against the
discounted bills, and wit for damages.
The jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff
—damages 405., his Lordship certifying for costs.