The sun., 1898-12-17

0oIe0OeuGb ocC0unt uutll JUN - AcVVss
lfthe other checks Of the defendant
drawn ON the bank and pAid by Il on or
before the payment Of the 500 check
and never made good TO the bank, be
taken into consideration, the OverdIaft
OF the defendant on June 4, 1896, would
have been at least $2,054.44, instead OF
$4O4.4i. :.
That upon the payment Of the check
for $500 on June I, 1896, the defendant
had actually Overdawn his account with
that bank in the sum OF $6O4.44 without
taking inte consideration any other
checks of the defendant on that bank
Heretofore paid out OF its funds and
never made good TO the bank. The
check for 500 was not charged in the
defendants account until June 10, 1895.
If the other checks of the defendant
drawn on the bank and paid by it on or
before the payment of the 500 check,
and never made good to the bank, be
taken into consideration, the overdraft
of the defendant on June 4, 1896, would
have been at least $2,254.A instead OF
$6O4.44.
Upon the payment OF the check for $500
on June 6, 1896, the defendant had actu-
ally overdrawn his account with that
bank in the sum of $l,30l.45 without
taking into consideration any other
checks of the defendant on that bank
Heretofore paid out of it's funds and not
made good to the bank. The check for
$500 was not charged in the defendants
account until July %, 1896, or Septem-
ber s, 1896. If the other checks OF
the defendant drawn on the bank
and paid by it on or before the pay
ment of the $500 check and never
made good to the bank, be taken
into consideration the overdraft OF the
defendant on June 6, 1896, would have
been at least $2,95l. AS, instead Of
81, ,3Ol.45. That upon the payment Of
the check for $500 on June l6, 1896, the
defendant had actually overdrawn his
account with that bank in the sum Of
$l,5l5.72, without taking into considers.
ton any other checks Of the defendant
on that bank heretofore paid out of its
fluids and not made good to the bank.
The check for $500 last named was not
charged in the defendants account until
July %, 1896, or September 8, 1896. II
the other checks of the defendant on the
bank and paid by it on or before the
payment of the $500 check last named
and never made good to the bank, be
taken into consideration, the overdraft
OF the defendant on June Is, 1896, would
have been at least $3,lG5.7 Y, instead OF
$l,5l5.72. That upon the payment OF
the check for $500 Oh July |. 1896, the
defendant had actually overdrawH his
account with that bank in the sum OF
81, sos. .46, without taking into considera-
ton any other checks of the defendant
in that bank heretofore paid out OF its
funds and not made good TO the bank.
TIE check for $500 last named was not
charged in the defendants account until
September s, 1896. If the other checks
of the defendant drawn on the bank and
paid by it on or before the payment OF
$500 check last named, and never made
good to the bank, be taken into con.
sideration, the overdraft of the defendant
on July /, 1896, would have been at least
$4,24S.46, instead OF $2,59s.46. That
upon the payment of the check for $l0C
on July 3, 1896, the defendant had actually
overdrawn his account in that bank in the
sum OF $3,6279l, without taking into
consideration any other checks OF the de.
fendant on that bank Heretofore paid
out of its funds and not made good to the
bank.
The check for 81 900 was not charged
in the account of the defendant before
july 7, 1896. If the other checks of the
defendant drawn on the bank and paid
by it on or before the payment of the
81 900 check, and never made good tG
the bank be taken into consideration
the overdrait of the defendant on July 3
1896, would have been at least S., ,277 81
instead of $3,627.9l.
1t thus appears that the eight above
mentioned checks drawn by the defend
ant on The First National Bank OF Dover
in favor of f. B. Cuthbert & Co., wer,
for the benefit and advantage of the de
fendant; and that those eight checks
were paid out of the funds OF that banl
, and were not charged to the account o
the defendant on the books thereof con
currently with their payment, but, OF
the contrary, were withheld from the ac
count of the defendant for varyin,
! periods Of time after they were so paid
, The above evidence is to the effect tina
those periods ranged from three days t.
several months, an average of thos
varying periods testified to amounts t.
: about thirty-two days.
( While the respective amounts OF th
, eight checks last referred to were at tn
. expiration of those respective period
' paid by the defendant to The Firs
National Bank OF Dover, that bank wa
| deprived Of the use and control durin
: those respective periods of its funds t
+. the amount of She checks respective
r withheld from the account of the de
t fendant during those periods; the ban
n not receiving any interest on tn
amount of the checks for an
n portion Of the periods during whic
+ they were respectively Withheld
It from the account of the defendar
|. the bank deprived in whole or in part {
e the possession and control Of the fund
e with which it carried on its legitimat
= business without recompense by way {
: interest or otherwise, thereby meet
of with loss and injury. In fact there
(. uncontraverted evidence in this cas
.s that while the First National Bank
}. Dover received small percentage on tt
|e balance in the hands of the reser,
70 agents Of the bank, not to speak of loar
c. and discounts yielding the bank hight
rate of interest, the uncontraverted ev
1T dence in this case is to the effect that +