The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-08-05
IMPORTANT TO BANKERS.

On TIE Sth OF April, 1874, at Nelson's Bank Of
Montreal, a draft or bill OF exchange dis
counted on Charles w. Howard & Co., OF this city,
at thirty days alter date for $4,000. The proceeds
Of such discount s2,60S 40 In gold, were passed to
the credit OF Niven & Co., In their account, and
were used by them pro tanto la retiring their
own acceptance OF Howard & Co.'s draft which
matured on that DAY ana which was held by the
Montreal Bank as agents OF the Mechanics Ma
tonal Bank OF ibis city for collection. The money
received by Nelson's Bank in payment OF Niven
U0.'s acceptance was At once RENTED TO the
Mechanics Bank. The former bank discounted
ana cashed the draft on the faith OF telegram or
acceptance received from Howard ~ 90. suit
was brought In the Superior Court by the Mon.
treal Bank against Howard & Co. az acceptors OF
the draft. The case was tried before Judge Mcneil
In March last, when verdict for $3,l17 90 was
rendered under direction OF the Court. From this
Judgment, and also from order denying mo-
tlon for new trial, defendants appealed to the
General Term. decision was given In the case
to-day, judge Curtis writing she opinion OF the
Court, affirming the Judgment and order appealed
from.
After recitng the facts or the case, during which
various citations are made frona the evidence ad-
duced on the trial and the rules OF law laid down
as applicable to the same, Judge Curtis concludes
his very elaborate opinion as ioows:-"It Is de-
sirable 80 avoid all such complications and to en-
Darrass the machinery OF mercantile transactions
with the fewest possible restrictions. There
seems to be no good reason why plalntln dis
counting an acceptance because ne received COL
lateral security from the drawers, who are only
contlngently liable, should De oeprived OF mis- re-
liable, because or tRe state OF the account be-
tween the acceptor and the drawer. The holder
bona fde and for the value OF an acceptance be-
fore maturity In suit against the acceptor Is
entitled TO recover from the acceptor without ref
erence to equities between the original parties.
Tnere was question a. the trial TO submit to
the Jury, ana ihe Court properly directed the jury
to ind verdict Tor the plaintiff. The Judgment
and order appealed from should be affirmed with
costs.
EVIDENCE IN GRIM. CON. SUITS.
In a suit brought in the Superior Court by Jas
per p. Row against Christina Row for divorce on
the ground or alleged adultery a decree OF d.
sorce was granted in favor OF the husband. An
appeal was taken by Mrs. Row from this judg-
ment 10 the General Term, where decision has
Just been rendered, Judge Freedman writing the
opinion oil the Court The point OF special In
teresL embraced In the opinion refers particu-
larly to the admissibility of evidence In suits OF
this character. he says on this point direct
testimony of the commission OF The offence
IL not necessary, but circumstantlal evidence,
which, by lair inference rresstbly points to that
conclusion, Is sufficient In this case 1t also ap-
pears that the husband claims to have found In
his wifes possession letter alleged to have been
written to her by her paramount. In the trial the
alleged parar1our was compelled to give an ex-
hiDit OF his penmanship to show whether the au
thOrship OF the letter could re traced to him. An
expert was then called TO pass upon the question
of geographical similarity. Judge Freedman
holds that all this WAS proper and admissible
Tne Judgment or the Court below 10 affirmed.