Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-03-10
FOR ME ENouIRER

Lar iN1ELLJtIENCE!
The following case is deemed interesting 10
those who are III the habit OF sending bank notes
by mail
Fishback and Ward exhibited their Pin in
the ChancgTy District Court OF Richmond. as
The President, Directors * Co of The Rank of
Virginia, charging that being Merchants in
CulPeper county, and having occasion to make
d remittance 10 their correspondents in PIila
ueiphla, they, as is customary with merchants
not convenient To banks, cut in two four notes
OF the bank of Virginia. three payable at FIRE.
derIcksUurg, and the other one in Richmond
the amount and numbers OF which thew spe ci(y
ana enclosed half OF each note in a letter adj.
dressed TO their said correspondents, which
they put in die Post Office az Jefferson in CuI.
pepper county, to BIZ conveyed By mail but that
the said letter and halt notes never reached
their correspondents aud are lost or destI owed:
Ihat after waiting reasonable time, they ap.
Piled 10 the president aud directors of lilo
branch bank at fredericksburg, for payment
of the notes, aud offered to give bond and So
curty TO indemnity them against any claim
that might thereafter be exhibited against
them on account of the said notes, and pro
duced the halves OF the notes in their posses.
sion, all OF which, except one of which tliey
make an exhibit, tile bank retained. and paid
them Halt the amount OF the three notes pAva
Dle al tieIr ONCE in fredericksburg, but sub
Sequenty ana after consulting The mother
bank refused TO pav any thing more The
prayer OF the bill u.s. That upon the cOmpiaiuauts
giving bond and security, &c. the defendants
Sndll De decTeeu 10 pay them tie residue of
tue money due on ali the notes aud for general
relief
The answer of the president and directors
does not admit that the cOmpIainants were nro
prIctOs OF tie notes sent tile halves nv mail
az they state, and call for proof OF the lact
aud Il proved, they contend that as the com
plainaDts cut the bills in twain themselves.
thoy have rolpRtarily destroyed their own sc.
cufity and cannot now Look to the bank for
payment, bat that If the court should think
diiferently, then they contend that the bark is
not liable to pay the moupS upon the complain
auts producing tile haiUcs of the said uoies
only. 4. Because the innocent holders of the
other halves might thereby he injured. 2. BE.
cause the bank cannot guard against surprize,
rs II will be impossible to identify the CORES.
pondent halves for the numbers, dates and
letters OF The halves produced will iii the same
denominations on any other bills or halves of
simIiaI description, as we'll as those alleged
TO be lost.
They also aver that the payment at the
brdHch bank aforesaid was without their know.
ledge. aud therefore ought not to btnd them 10
further payment, bat that the cOmplainants
ought to refund.
The compiauauis by the deposition of one
witness prove, that they enclosed in "A letter
directed us ihey charge, and deposited in the
post ONCE, four half notes corresponding in
Gm04at "ttl the half notes mentioned a the
bih, Dot I,ei Is 40 proof tbat these hill notes,
~yre us lsiyes Oi the notes set forth b Sic