The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-02-06
srr5m tie
An Important Cnsp--.A Question y, OF .Is the
ReaDonaihaIigy of q Banks

For several days mucn IutsiSso H"o y Sss.il
felt in c,se on trial sin the sbaitinsore Gity
Court, Hon. Judge Scott, involving an I'M
portant questioned the Responsibility " ene
Third National Bank Of this city, sltuatea ON
South street below Second street, east sue
to one Of its depositors, William ID. baeh ,
ford. ESQ. general agent of the WIDOWS, ana
Orphans' Benefit Life Insurance Company,
corner of South and German streets. Inc
case was given to the jury on THURSDAY, ana
on Yesterday q verdict was returned III flVor
of the bank. '.s#t1 ~
1t appeared from the testimony that on the
9th of May, 1871, Dir. Blackboard, in the reg1s-
lar course of business, made deposit OF Soo,
and six weeks thereafter he was notified tllat
his bank account WINS short. He at once De
MED that his bank account was overdrawn,
but in order to protect any check which ne
might hive given, deposited the amount
claimed bv the bank. At the request OF Mr.
William DiffenderfIer, the book-keeper OF the
bank having his account in charge, he placed
his handbook, containing the entry OF the
9Th of May, in his hands, that he might, by q
comparison, discover where the discrepancy
existed.
MIR. Diffendertfer, in the course Of his eX-
animation Of the accounts, erased from MT.
Rlackford's handbook the entry for the eth
of May. He sent for Mr.. Blackboard immedi-
ately after making the erasure and told nm
| he thought he had discovered IN error, anu
claimed that it was in the entry OF S5O, Wlncli
he confessed he had erased. Mr.. blackboard
demanded his deposit book and appealed TO
the cashier, Alexander NJ. Carter, Esq, and
| protested against the act of the book-keeper.
The cashier refused to recognize the CLAIM OF
Mr.. Blackboard, and the case was taken be-
fore Justice Robinson, who, after an lnvesti-
CATION, gave judgment for $50 against the
! bank.
An appeal was taken, and the case was
called before bis Honor Judge Scout on
| Thursday last, Frank 7. Clark, Esq, appear
inc for Mr., Blackford, and Henry Stock
| bridge. ESQ.,, representing the bank.
MIR. Diflenderfcr being called, stated that
he had made the erasure of the entry of the
9Th of May, and that before erasing it he had
shown it to his observation-disclosures, Mr..
| Cleaveland p. Manning, and that he showed
the handbook, after making the erasurc. to
the receiving teller, Mr.. Henry c. Griffin,
calling his attention to it. He further testi-
fled that he recolIected that the entry of $50
was in handwriting similar to that of Mr..
| Bhckford. The handbook from which the
entry had been erased was put in evidence,
and it appeared that Immediately under the
entry Of the Sth of May balance had been
struck by Mr.. Crane, the book-kccper of Mr..
| Rlackford. and it was further shown that the
small lead pencil figures, showing the balance
still remaining, had been placed there
| bv Mr.. Crane before there was any question
Of the entry of so.
Mr.. Manning, when called, testified that,
as far as his recollection served him, the
figures of the disputed entry, when shown to
him bv DIr. Ditlcnderier, were similar to
those on the debit side of the book.
MIR. Griffin, the receiving teller, testified
that the handbook of Mr. Blacktord had
been exhibited to him by Mr.. Ditiendcrtlcr
after the crlsure, and that enough was left OF
fine figures to enable him to discover that
they we're in Mr.. BIackford's handwriting.
Cashier Carter testified that it was q mat
ter of everyday occurrence that checks were
entered on the wrong side of bank-books,
and the counsel of Mr.. BlaclfOrd, with de-
sire to avoid an appearance of intinlatinS that
there had been improper dealing on the part
Of the bank, subjected Mr.. Cartcrto lengthy
and ririd cross-eyllnination to show that the
nrcs,lmption was largely in favor of the cor
rectncss of the entry in the depositors bank
book.
The fact was elected that the books Of the
bank were all made up from the deposit
tickets, there being but one book OF original
cntry-namcly, the receiving teller blotler-
aud that it would necessarily follow that
failure on the part Of the depositor to accom-.
pany deposit with deposit ticket would
prevent the particular deposit from appear.
ing OH any books except his handbook and
the receiving teller's blottcr. 1t further ap-
pcarcd in the course Of the examination OF
! Cashier Carter that almost every cmployc OF
| the bank would at times fill the position OF
the receiving teller, and that any failure OF
error on the part of the receiving teller TO
enter deposit in his blotter would destroy
all evidence except what would appear from
the depositor's handbook. Under these cir
cumstances, it seemed that the entry in the
depositor's handbook had been erased while
in the keeping of book-kecper of the bank,
and after it had been placed in his hands at
his request. The theory Of the defence was
wholly that the alleged erroneous entry must
have arisen from mistake Of Mr.. Blackfords
in entering the particular check in dispute on
the wrong side.
Mr.. Blackboard testified that immediately
| after the return Of the handbook to him by
Mr.. Difenderffer he placed it under lock and
key, and that it had not been removed from
such safc-keeping except when before jus
tice Robinson until brought into court. To
rebuilt the idea that the entry was in Mr..
| Blackfords handwriting it was shown that
it was his inyariable custom to enter oil bis
checks Mt such time as he would desire to
ascertain the balance to his credit. and that
| he kept no check upon the bank by entering
deposits in his check-book. The handbook
and the checks being shown in evidence, il
appeared that the checks had been regularly
and consecutiYely numbered and entered.
Tn the course Of the argument Of Mr.. Clark
it was urged that inasmuch as it was estab-
lished that the erasure rs it appeared to the
Jury from the handbook in evidence i'll no
particular differed from what it was when
seen by Mr.. Griffin, that Mr.. Griffin's memory
must have been at fault especially when il
was considered that 6 strong magnltylna
glass which had been brought into requisi
ton had not enabled the jury to see at all the
tracerv Of the figures.
He further claimed that such remnants Of
them rs remained justified them in conclu
ding that they were similar in every particu
lar to those in Mr. Grifin's handwriting
The attention Of the jury was called to AT
entry of over S10,000 only few entries pre-
ceding the one which had been erased, and
! 1t was urged that in the event Of the ersssurt
Of the entry for that large amount the same
evidence which had been introduced to sup.
port the bank in the case at the bar would
be of equal force under similar circum
stances. 1t was further urged by Mr.. Black
tord's counsel that the bank was in the posi-
ton of debtor, who upon having presented
his account for payment second time, ano
having receipt for payment produced as
evidence of payment, and who upon being
entrusted with the receipt should destroy il