The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-11-19
NAVAL INTf:LLIG ENCE.
From the Norfolk Herald, Nov. II
u. s. Sn,r GERMArrowS,
LAW Intelligence.

ComMos PLEAs, Nov. Is-Bsfore Judge Ulshosirer -
Simeon r. Smith U.s. Fred'k Pentz President Of the Me
chanics' Banking charlottesville action to
from the bank the amount Of two checks,
for $780, and the other for sas 1t appeared that plain
he had In his employ In ls45, man named Bcnjsmin
Okear, O book keeper; the two checks In question
were signed in blank and got into the hands Of 0kesr
tin On the 26th Of December the check for $3.50
presented at the bank and psid The plaintiff AZ
formed the officers of the bank that the check for $500
was missing and cautioned them against paying it
notvithstandnS which the latter check was paid on
the 26th Of January 1916 The action sought to be
sustained on two grounds arst that both checks
forgeries and that the bank paid them In their
wrong and secondly that the last check paid after
defendant were cautioned against paying It, There
various grounds Of defence set up the principal Of
which was that the notice alleged by plaintiff not
given TIE judge, after making some preliminary
to the jury said that defendant had produced the
bank ok containing their and the question
jury to determine do those regulations apply
to the present case? do said his Honor think they
do IT, for instance, you 90 to bank to lodge $500 and
IL in entering it, an error is made aud you 70
away without seeing 1t corrected, the bank will
not be afterward' bound Your duty would be
to have the error corrected at the time. There
is nothing In these regulations that prevents q
man from requiring the amount ola check II the bank
paws II contrary to his order This check paid by
bank and charged to the plaintiffs account and the
question for you to determine Is, whether they had
right to pay and then charge to the plaintiff This,
however, depends upon whether they notified not
You before you the plaintiffs clerk who ested that
he tho bank to give them notice not pay any
Their and that he Mr. Stephens the teller and
rave him the notices and in order to provide aqanst f
ture contingencies Of another check which ousand
ing he told him that in future the checkswould BE-
bcred and to pay none that not The defend
produced Mr. stephens, and he said he had recocc
ton Of any such notice having been given and that until
tics The plaintiffs counsel objects to this testimony
and says the witness Is interesedthat he has given his
bond to the bank, and accountable to the banking
socistion but the law has settled that although he
teller and has given his bond, he Ia notwithstanding
competent Witness and entitled to be before you
and give evidence In this cause and besides his bond Ia
not forfeited for error or mstakef Of you
gentlemen, surety for him a. teller Of the Mocha
nics Bank you would not be liable for his or.ms
take you would only be surety for his honesty and not
for his mistakes In regard to his interest In
maintaining his conduct ne clerk or officer In the
bank; perhaps the same remark would apply 70 the
as much interested in showing that he obeyed the
directions Of his superior Ms the teller Is his You
have heard the testimony OF both witnesses and you
Judge from their OF giving II, which OF
them has told the truth is entitled to most credit
but In my opinion It is not necessary to cast discredt
on either Of the witnesses You may place the discre
pancies between them, 10 error or bad memory The
plaintiffs attorney was sworn and he tells you ne went
to the hank with the plsintf aud saw MIR Stephens,
who he says admit notice. but said that II not
given in writing and that II It he would
take notice OF he had paid several checks before
under similar crcumsta but In regard to written
notice, where party Keeps an account with bank
think verbal motto, as good as written notice But as
matter of law " the bank put their guard not
to pay check they bound TO take notice. and
not to pay It and II they did pay then the plaintiff
under the common counts would have Alright to
Furthermore you to determine whether the plain
tits neglect In regard to this transaction induced
defendant TO pay this check II rule Of law that
party must bear the loss where has resulted from an
omission of his own duty Blu, the proof before you
sufficient to show that payment Of those checks was
caused by plaintiffs negligence In leaving them out
stan ding the hands OF his clerk after he returned to
town II you satisfied Of that, the defendant would
be entitled 10 your verdict But you have heard tho
plantations Of plaintiffs counsel that point aud you
satisfied with them, you ought to find for the plain
til Verdict for plaintiff for tiu 80. For plaintiff
Mr.. Msther for defendant Mr.. Mount.
Before Judge Ingraham-Rotert stead II ol rs Noah
T. Pike This action for work and labor, under
the lien law After the PLAINTIFF got through
the Judge ordered II to be referred.
CouRr or APPEALS The court met, and cause No 6
was resumed and the argument concluded No. 10 was
taken up, and the argument not concluded when the
court adjourned.
SUPREME CerRT The court met at 10 O'Clock, and
ths argument Of No s, reserved cause, VS. resumed