The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-05-30

bank closed it's door seventeen days If
 ter the check was deposited? This dues | ton you must solve according to com
 mon sense. and your knowledge of humaI
 nature and business affairs in connection with all the evidence. as 1t may convinc,
 you what was thu real status and condi v ton of things on the first day aftel Cochran received the check and on an,
 saDsequent sa1s e day. on which the check couit | As regards the counts charging a con. version of the check, the same genera
 principles apply You will ascertain
 ,s what .ne value of the. check was at the
 with interest from the day of conversion
 less what has been received on account | of the check. will be the measure of re- covery on the counts for the conversion or the check. As already stated, the court is not of the opinion that the Court or Appeals has ruled that the check itself was money. in such absolute sense that
 H IS to be treated as so many dollars put into the bank, regardless of the ac- tual fact that no actual money was put in, and that the bank was insolvent at that time. If you should so find, as the evidence seems to show. That court, in my opinion, did not mean that the check not have held, as 1t did, that there was any duty to collect the check which was already in the hands of the Treasurer. Besides the evidence in the case shows. that the deposit of the check was in pur- suance of design, which. in law at least, amounted to fraud both upon the coun- ty and upon the Treasurer.
 None of these questions. however, as to the value of the check. or the non- collection of 1t, arise in the case, if you are reasonably satisfied from the evil cence that Allen delivered the bonds to lief. induced by what transpired between him and Cochran at and about the time Of the delivery of the bonds to the pur- cases-Q use the name of Cochran, a1-
 ef at of nTs in for what Kohn did at that time for Coch- ran, was the same in law as If Cochran himself had been present)-that Cochran had actually converted the check into you are reasonably satisfied that this was the case, and that Allen was induced to part with the bonds, under the req sonable belief. created by anything said or done at and about the time of the de- livery of the bonds, that the check had been collected in money, then the defend ants in this case would be liable for the agreed value of the bonds, to wit, the the time of any payment that may have been made, and then deducting the pay ment. for the remainder, with interest thereon up until today. In that event, I Cochran could have collected 1t by due diligence or not, would be immaterial and need not be considered. Now. what ere the facts as to this? That Is @ question for you upon all the evidence. The receipt. the check, and what took place at and before the delivery of the bonds. must be looked to, to determine whether Allen was reasonably induced to deliver the bonds on the reasonable be- lief that the check had been actually collected in money from the purchaser, before the bonds were delivered to him. The receipt executed. of and in itseif Is not at all conclusive. The Court of Appeals has held that the check .yas proceeds of the salee of the bonds. The receipt to the Board of Revenue, which has been introduced in evidence, stated that Cochran had received from the Board of Revenue '$111, ,1o9 5e, proceeds sale $l00,000 bonds.' The receipt. then. would be literally correct whether the cash had been received, or the check received. for the purchase of the bonds: for that amount of sspro- ceeds" had been received by the Treasti- Ter from the Board of Revenue. The receipt then on It's face is not & represen- tation either that cash or check had been received from the Board of Revenue proceeds sale $100, ,000 bonds;" but only that one or the other had been received Alien knew Cochran had received proceeds of the bonds, when Allen delivered the check to him for collection. and that the proceeds were then in the shape that re- Quired collection to make those proceeds