Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1906-03-28
e!glE2I2LNEs
Cures Whiskev and Beer Hahit
JUDGE SPRUANGE.S OPINION

o. o. ]
the armers Bauk
The opinion Of Judge W. @. Snruouce
as a minority member Of the SurefIor
Court 10 the question Of the non-suit
va the case OF the National Dredging
%. vs. The Farmers Bank in Superior
Court yesterday was as f0loWss
4 desire to state briefly some OF the
reasons why l am not able to concur .
with majority Of the Court in grant
/ ing non-suit in this csHe.
What conclusion We, sitting as jurors,
might reach as to the right Of the I
/ plaintiff TO recover, is a very different /
question from that now presented to |
US.
A non-suit should not be granted |
/ unless u 10 clear that there 10 20 evid- |
ence before the jury which would |
/ justify any reasonab3 man in finding |
a verdict for the plaintiff Tor part any
| OF his claim.
Nor should non suit be granted
unless the court IS prepared TO say
that they would be Obliged to set aside
any verdict which no ght be rendered
In favor OF the plaintiff.
Tho evidence on the part of the
| plaintiff is 10 the effect that all OF the
ITO or ] II checks 10 controversy, coVsr-
] Nah a. ENAAAA "a 400lN ANn u VIA gn0AH
and amounting ia the aggregate to
about $780, COO, we're originally drawn
payable to the order OF the psyees
named therein, and signed by the
treasurer, the only officer of the plain
tih company authorized TO make
cheeks ana that aiterWards they we're
fraudulently altered by Ohurohman,
the secretary Of the company, 80 as 10
make them payable to bearer and
that they we're theFeupon presented by
! Churchman to the defendant bank
I aud paid by it to him.
The first and important question is,
whether there ia any evidence which
would warrant the jury in inierfing
and finding that the bank did not use
due and reasonable care and diligence
to discover tnat these checks or some
of them had been irsudulently altered.
The most casual examination OF the
checks disclosing that they had been
altered at some time by some person.
The word "beafer'' in some of the
checks. while apparently in tbs same
handwriting as the body OF the check,
appears to have been written at
different time from the body of the
check, as Indicated by a difference 10
the shade of the ink, tbs heaViness Of
stroke, or the slant of the letters, or
the position OF the word.
In few cases the word bearer"
appears to be in a different handwTit-
ing from the body Of the check, which
would indicate that IL had been written
at different tine from the body Of
the check.
These or some otheI circumsta noes
appear, at one time to have e1cite1 the
curiosity If not the suspicion OF the
cashier of the bank-or at least made
necessary or pertinent the statement
to him by Churohman that he was
getting the money for the payeea
because they could not get currency
Wkere they we're; a lame and unsetis-
9 factory explanation, as the cashier
2 then knew, OF should have known, that
u 10 none of the places where the payees
l. were, was there then any difficulty on
that ecore. The officers Of the bank
knew the residences or places Of busi
ness of many Of the payees OF the alter
ed checks.
e Many genuine checks, payable to the
g same payees, had been returned to the
u bank with the stamps or irdorsement
Z, upon them showing plainly that the
" payees had received the money on sale
checks at banks at distant points,
such as Mobile, Alabama.
1t was certainly a remarkable cir
lg oumstance, calculated to excite inquiry
A IL not suspicion, that many OF th'
~ checks, evidently for the benefit @
payees living in distant places, wer'
made payable to bearer, aud were pre-
sentsd here for payment by a persol
No not named therein.
d, The fact that Churohman presented
and got the money on so many OF thes
bearer checks, and that no one els
nreseuted any OF like character, was
fact which should have put the banl
In the course Of it's business wit
d. Barker, the treasurer, the bank otiieer
on must have known that be was sel1or
", In Wilmington, and that many OF tn
of checks bearing his signature wer
signed by him elsewhere, and sent her
las by mail; and they, as business me
tic of average intelligence, knew tha
eft Barker would have been guilty OF tn
ew orossest negligence had he haoltuall)
or often, sent checks payable to oears
,tv through the mail, and thus liable
~ come 10 the hands Of unauthorize
30 persous. The bank had no rlght
-is- impute such negligence to barker
no and the frequency with which sue
obeeKs we're presented to the ban
should have led it TO make inquiry
W W to the cause Of such unbusinessiit
lbo conduct.
'ne A word Of inquiry of Barker whe
.a' here, or q letter or telegram 20 MIN
IN to anyone OF the payees OF the alter,
checks, would instantly have orougl
rch a rsply which would have put 80 ei
lay to the foigeries and populations OF u
lou seoretary Of the plaintiff company.
tier IL is not necessary that the con
'fy, should believe that the facts ana ei
the oumstsnces 70 which | have allude
or that any other facts or olIooI
old stances in evidence, prove that =
we bank was negligent in the paymen'
nto me altered checks or any OF them'
his h eufioient for the present purpose
e. the evidence was Of such a charac1
100, as 10 justify jury Of reasonable m
In iniefring a want Of due care a.
- diligence on the part Of the Dank
the payment of anyone of said alter
checks. am not prepared TO assui
the responsibility Of saying tnat
iury would net be iustined ~ lnl'
finq such want of care ana oiligencs
and 1 am Therefore Of the opinion 20
the evidence on that point shoulu
. submitted to the Jury. -,
"If the defendants othceis' uei'