The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-21 00:00:00

I 8 5 E.

THE CROSSING OF CHEQUES.

The extent to which the view prevails that a
specific crossing of cheques would impart especial
s ecuin.y renders allusion to it necessary, although the
point was fully decided as recently as February, 1852,
in the impoitant case "Bellamy v. Marjoribanks." In
that instance a cheque on Coutts and Co. for 2,5961. was
remitted to a London solicitor to be paid to the Court
of Chancery, the sender having previously taken the
precaution of crossing it, "Bank of England, for ac-
count of the Accountant-General." The solicitor, in
order to appropriate it to his own use, struck his pen
throuli this, and wrote the name of "Goslings and
Co." his own bankers, underneath it. The cheque thus
altered was paid by Messrs. Coutte, and an action was
brought against them by the drawer to recover the
amount. The judges, however, held that an instrument
payable "to bearer could not be restricted, and a ver-
dict- was given for the defendants. At the same time
the remarks of the Court on that trial were such as for-
cibly to illustrate the discreditable anomalies of the
general question, and to leave no doubt of the absolute
necessity of the passing of a distinct act to prevent the
continual recurrence of litigation and the daily anxiety
experienced by every trader lest it should next be his
own turn to be exposed to loss. There is no doubt
that, under the law as it stands, a cheque purporting to
be drawn to bearer cannot afterwards be made special.
Indeed, without a legislative provision to that effect,
the idea itself would be absurd. Nevertheless, reliance
had been placed on the force of custom, at all events
within certain limits, in giving such validity to theprac-
tice as would warrant a judgment against any one who
should change or pay an instrument of this description
without due caution ; and this reliance, which had
previously been almost perfect, and which has now
been dispelled altogether, was greatly shaken by the
result o f the verdict in 1852. On that occasion the
illogical distinctions attempted to be drawn were suffi-
cient to indicate that nothing but uncertainty would pre-
vail for the future, and that the public would neither have
the advantage of being informed that they must cease to
attach any value to the system of crossing cheques, or, on '
the other hand, that the practice might safely be relied '
upon within certain limits. The Court, for instance, pro-
nounced that nothing could restrain the negotiability of
a cheque payable to bearer, and hence that, even if a
custom of regarding a crossing to a special banker as
obligatory could be proved—which in that case it had
not—it would be incapable of being supported in point
of law. At the same time, however, it was clearly seen
that anything tending to sweep away the protection of
crossed cheques altogether would create universal incon-
venience and dismay, and, consequently, after a series
of remarks from the Court on the valuable nature of the
usage in preventing crime and facilitating all the com-
mercial transactions of the kingdom, it was intimated
that, although a crossing to an individual banker would
be legally inoperative, a general crossing such as "
and Company," signifying that it must be paid through
some banker, was not to be disregarded without peril.
It is obvious, however, that the distinction here sought
as a kind of compromise rested upon an impalpable
basis, and that if, apart from all question of custom, the
negotiability of a cheque cannot be restricted, the law
must apply with just the same force whether the endea-
vour be made with regard to one individual banker or
the small body of individuals comprised in the entire list
of bankers. From that moment, therefore, it was plain
that nothing could be depended upon in the matter, and
that in every future case it would be 'completely a point
of chance as to whether the weight for the moment
would be on the side of "law" or custom." Even,
hov,.ever, if this general state of doubt ,had not been
created, and the validity of the crossing " and
Company" had been left unquestioned, the public would
have been in no better position. Owing to the facilities
afforded by the joint stock banks, and their small
branches, no person in London of the slightest acuteness
can have any difficulty in passing a cheque through some
bank, if it be left open to him to choose any that may be
convenient. It is true that these facilities are to be re-
garded with satisfaction, but they completely alter the
state of affairs that prevailed when banking accommoda-
tion was limited. A special crossing would, therefore,
under any circumstances afford the only protection, and
after the recent intimation of Lord Campbell it is useless
to calculate upon any remedy, except the rational one of
introducing a measure to secure, beyond controversy,
those advantages which it was hitherto hoped bad been
secured by custom, and which all admit to be inestimable.
—Times' City Article.