The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1904-04-28
SUIT BETWEEN BANBS.

In county court Friday the case of
the Capital Savings Bank & Trust
Co., VS.. The Montpelier Savings Bank
& Trust Co., was heard before Judges
Rowell, Dana, and Hathaway, This
is a suit which grew out of the forger-
les of DR.. w. II. Hardness. 1t seems
that DR.. Hardness during the years he
was in town secured various loans from
the Capital Savings Bank, upon the
credit of friends in Burlington and
Charlotte, who signed notes with him.
Later he took up some. of the notes
and punched several into large one.
March 6, 1908, the bank held a note
for 81, 700 with his name and three
others on it. On that day DR.. Hark-
ness went to the bank and spoke to
the cashier, Frank Smith, about get
ting another loan. Smith wrote a
$500 note for him to have signed and
he went out. A little later he re-
turned with the note signed and bear
ing the initials of President 7. J.
Deavitt, under the word approved. He
was paid $500 and went away.
The testimony FRIDAY showed that
Mr.. Desvitt discovered the note later
and told Mr.. Smith he had never ap-
proved it. He went to Hardness office
and talked with the doctor, who ad-
mitted that the $500 note was for
gerry AS to the 81, 700 note, it is dis
puted whether he admitted the for
gerry then or not until later. He was
told that he must square up with the
bank or it would mean term of
years. 1t appears that he then forged
the names of three indorsels to note
for 50, 060 and secured 81, 200 in money
and a cashiers's check for 81, 600 from
the Montpelier Savings Bank. With
the money and check he took up the
notes at the Capital Bank. Soon at
forwards he was arrested. The Mont
pelier Savings Bank refused to pay
the cashiers check and this suit re-
suited.
The defendant bank claims that the
circumstances of the transaction at the
Capital Bank were such that it was
not in the regular course of business
that the cashiers check was taken, and
that the plaintiff bank either knew it
had been obtained fraudulently OF
were so put upon inquiry that il
should have been looked into and the
truth ascertsined. 1t is also claimed
that the notes that were taken up by
Hardness were forgeries so far as the
indorseIs went and practically valu.
less so far as the doctor went, so that
the Capital Bank was not bona fide
holder for value.
The Capital Bank claims to be
holder for value in that part of the
| former notes which went to make NJ
the 81, 700 note were genuine and thai
moreover the DOCTORS single sigma
ture would bring them within the
| rule. There is also dispute as tt
whether the notes were due or not
! No decision was rendered and in any
case it is expected the question will
60 to Supreme Court. John H. Sen
ter, K. M. Harvey and w. A. Lord ap
! pear for the defendant and 7. J. Deav
lit and E. H. Deavitt for the plain
tiff.
Thursday afternoon the divorce
case of Joseph A. Chaplin VS. Berths
M. Chaplin was heard and bill granted
for desertion. Zed S Stanton for pc
titioner. The divorce case of Lillian
A. Collins VS.. Alland B. Collins wa
heard on grounds of desertion and re
fusal to support and the petition wa
dismissed. j. P. Lamson for petit
toner. The divorce case Of Addie r
| Townsend vs.. Calvin +. Townsent
was heard and bill granted for deser
ton. Burton E. Bailey for petit
toner.