New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-08-12
MIR. STRAUSS VS.. THE SOUTHERN
BANK.

Cashier of the Southern Bank. is in fair way
to assume formidable proportions. Next to
the war in Europe and the recovery of
Digby's child, We may place in point of pub
lie interest, this celebrated dispute about
certified check for $4,000.
The Bee Of yesterday morning, in an ex-
cess of zeal for its excellent friends and
fellOw-citzens. Mr. Thomas Layton, and
Mr.. c. Livaudais. President and Cashier of
the Southern Bank" falls into several ma
terial inaccuracies, in presenting this case
to its readers. And as it is the special mis-
sion of the REPUBLICAN to disseminate cor
rect information and place all matters of
public interest before the people exactly as
they occur, we naturally come to the rescue
We can, the more properly do this, as neither
of the contestants is more than the other
our " excellent friend" nor more or less en-
titled to his rights.
This a question in which high character
has nothing whatever to do. The parties
litigant are in the same rank, and follow
substantially the same calling-lending
money dealing in exchange, and making an
honest penny here and there out Of their
surplus capital. But the question is one
purely of mercantile usage and law.
About four months ago, Mr.. Strauss
bought large amount of Sta tie warrants of
our absconding ex-Auditor, for which he
gave in part payment certified check
on the Southern Bank for $4,000. But
early next morning, having discovered
that he had been cheated by Nicklitfe'
who had palmed off upon him bogus
State warrants, Strauss went to the bank
and requested that the payment of the
check be stopped. twas subsequently pre-
scented by the porter or runner OF another
bank. and payment demanded. But he was
told that Strauss had interdicted the pay
ment. which was accordingly refused. He
told the bank teller that the check was not
his, but belonged to a man who was waiting
for him at the corner. He then took the
check and left with it, since which time it
has not been seen or heard of by either of
the parties litigant. The runner was imme-
diately discharged from employment, and
he has also disappeared.
w
payable to bearer) took it away. and for
| all that is known to the contrary, may have
| destroyed ii on being told that payment
| was refused. At any rate, he did not have
| it protested. nor did he take any Of the Or
| binary steps to enforce collection. But the
| bank sets up the theory that it is RESPONSE
| BILE for its acceptance, notwithstanding 1t
has once informed the payee that it will not
pay the money. and he has made no further
effort to get it, though four months have
| passed away.
| Mr.. Strauss now asks to have his bank
book balanced, by emitting to charge him
with the amount of the check. He tells the
bank that the $4,000 in controversy be-
longs either to him or the holder of the
check, and it is no concern of the bank
which is the owner. as the money would not
in any case belong to it. But he offers un
doubted security for indemniication in case
the acceptance is ever presented and pay
ment enforced He offers to relieve the
bank of all liability to any third party, and
has rendered such as may be deemed first
class security. Besides, Mr.. Strauss him
self is in very high credit among financial
men. and is fully as responsible for any just
claims that may be presented against him
as the Southern Bank. He naturally OBJ
iects to leave $4,000 tied up in bank; he
wants the use of his money, and failing
to obtain an amicable settlement applies
for a mandamus TO compel the officers OF
the bank to balance his pass-book, in the
manner above stated. 1t is an error to say
that he has made a judicial demand for the
payment of the money. What course he
may pursue after Mr.. Layton shall have
complied with the iudment OF the Eight
District Court, is another question. All hi
has asked for is that the bank shall make 8
showing on his book that the money has
not been paid to anybody. For this he offer:
ample security Judge EmmersOn granted
the mandamris, which Messrs. Layton an(
Livaudais refused to obey. This action i;
in contempt of the authority of the court
and they were ordered to DE imprisoned
Application was then made to Judge Col
lens, who had the gentlemen brought be
fore him and released. 1t is believed tina
this interference of the Judge of the Sew
enth District Court is violation Of act No
Sc. "to prevent conflict Of jurisdiction be
tween the several courts of this State, an(
to punish the same" passed by the Legisla
ture at its last regular session. But as WI
are to presume that Judge Collens is faml
liar with the provisions OF this act, it il
probable that he does not consider it ha
anv application to the case ineontroversy
As Chief Justice Ludeling has ordered til,
case to be brought before the Suprem,
Court, we shall have to wait several months
for the final result. In the meantime the
Southern Bank will enjoy the use Of the
money.