New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-09
THE OCEAN BANK ROBBERY.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BANKERs-AN IMPOR
TANT VERDICT IN PENNSYLVANIA.

a IL
TANT VERDICT IN PENNSYLVANIA.
Between Saturday the Goth and Monday the
18th OF June 1869 the ocean National Bank al the cor
uer OF Fulton and Greenwich-sts., was entered and
robbed Of SOOOO Among the property stolen ere col
lateral securities for $4,000 borrowed Of the bank by
smith Randolph & Co.. bankers. The money thus
loaned the property Of the Second National Bank
Of Erie, deposit with the Ocean Bank.
AID action was brought in the Supreme Court Of Penny
yania before Judge sharswood and jury by the Sec
ond National Bank Of Erie, to Of the defendants,
Smith Randolph Co.. the sum % S5oV" WIN interest
en- far from beipe liable for the amount they were emit
tied 70 $9Os the difference between the amount or
the loan and the market value OF their securities winch
Judge sharswood in his chargelto the jury stated that
made on call or payable at the option Of either borrower
or lender The plaintiffs alleged that they were not
were the properly OF the defendants and pledged with
the Ocean Bank security for the loan OF the $1,000
they were trusted 10y the defendants with these
bonds, and liable to them naDie at all in,i I"r
ing that tine plaintiffs were responsible Tor any
negligence OF the ocean Bank, that bank was Lot guy
OF any negligence in keeping them which would render
either them the Ocean Bank responsible to the De
PENDANTS for the value Of those securities. IL would
follow this that the loss OF the United states bonds
msfortne which they could neither visit upon the Erie
Bank the ocean Bank; and further that the plain
tiff would he entitled 70 the full amount OF the
original loan made 10 the defendants.
The 10 be considered II the fact were estab-
lished as though the Ocean Bank Themselves the
plaintiffs and the Second National Bank OF Erie al I'M
disclosed principal. Any defense growing out Of the
failure Of duty the part OF the Ocean Bank was
equally available against the Erie Bank suing plain
I'm. uon the contract made By the Ocean Bank as their
agents II had been settled In the law OF the civzed
world that bailment or pledge was contract for che
mutual benefit Of both parties The pawnee Is bound to
use ordinary diligence a2d 70 - more in the
IL stolen through any negligence gf the baiee,
ne il respontibie; II without eglgence, he is
not responsible Ordinary diligence has been Se
fined TO lie "that degree Of care which men OF common
prudenec generally exercise in their affairs, IN the
country and age in which they live" Thus what might
be ordinary diligence In one country and In age,
may al another time and Ia another country be even
gross mo Rligence What Ia generally done In place in
respest 10 things Of hike nature whether less
n pont pf diligence than ID exaced III another place be
comes inc general OF diligence IN that place and
eonstitues The standard What constitutes ordinary
diligenc, may also he materially affected by
the nature Of the articlesthe bulk value OF the art
cles 10 b.. pledged. would not be expected Ia
Eme bag of oats as of bag Of dollars
The baise ought proportions hs, care 10 the value Of
the thing ntrusted To him ana u the nature " IT.
The absence Of any evidence Of want Of the loss
OF TIE SaIlee own goods 10y tie as that
by which be lost the pawners gives rise 70 presunp
ton of ordinary The jury were To decide whether
the Ia which the property was kept d or did not
evince ordinary without regard as u whether the
bllee's goods kept IN the same manner or not
the rst the main objections made upon the part
" the defendants that the bank had no inside watch
man, which II alleged IN ordinary precautiOn.
Evidence had been gwen that a number oi No" YORK
banks had No iRside watchman Ihat Tact dd not alto