Virginia gazette. [volume] (Williamsburg, Va.) 1893-192?, 1910-02-03
PROTECTS THE
MERCHANTS
Business Men Appear 20 Advo-
cate Bill Against Dead Beats
and Swindlers.

II q II n @ y D. A 80 special -
Merchants from an parts % the
state we're o. hand yesterday after
noon 20 attend the hearing OF the bills
offered by Colonel sale regarding the
protection % merchants from dead
beats and sWlrdlers % all sorts. Who
have been preying on merchants for
n long time. and who have been able
% esca pc prosecution BY reason o. the
inperfections OF the law and Inability
20 reach them
TIE outline OF the bills was gwen
in The Evening Journal yesterday. ard
ars des Ered 20 ptu an End 90 the
worthless check bushes. the refusal
% return or pay for goods when or
dered sent for exam l-arlon. the cecii-
nation 20 pay for Eoode sent &C q. . %
The parties who are guilt ~ such
transactions are 20 be charged with
larceny under the provisions OF the
Bills The hearing was quite lengthy
ard the committee deferred action
tu a later date
salient features and effects OF the
proposed hsd-check law were sum
Married az follows
n placing The maker % a worth
less cheek. who refuses 90 make good
upon being notified o. is worthless-
ress. in the same category az law
+ 90 e person who def-auds or commits
Z theff ir any other --srner. q boon will
I be conferred on practically every mer-
/ chant i~ Virginia f0- Uho has not
suffered ~ the sharp practices a. this
( particular class q gentry.
The advantages % such lew. as
stated are ff would practice llv GER
tfy en- checks u would tins enable
4 r. merchant 20 lake checks from par
ties WITH whose financial circuu
stances he may De unfamiliar without
the usual formalitles OF references
ere. which often are not available
sIfrc-r delay. even with parties en-
Itirely responsible. thus enacting n,
tlai henent 20 both parties 10 the
Transaction
TIE proposed law in It's working
would not make u obligatory FOR a
victim 20 prosscute--rnerely possible
10 DO - FOR their recovery and pro
lection. u wiu put the bad checi
1asher on the same footing ultf
those INDUCING IN the other forms O
! theft or frauc-prosecution IN thos'
cases being not obligatory
should "a person unconsciously over
draw hls bank account, which - IRE
I Quenfiy the case with very worth
Individuals. they would merely har
! % make good upon application beln
made for that purpose Inc lai
E would 10 effective only as agains
s-,ch rersons Who refused 20 max
> proper provision FOR their check
Z spon being notified % their dishono
az bank
~. Umzgaser. of Norfolk. presideI
l.. % the assoc aflcfls a4t olt4trA At4E Dl-
from e standpoint OF public honest
y and protection 20 business me
II Charles y Norman. % Eichmon
showed that a civil suit VIII not a
ways remedy the case. and that mai
ing certain onenseE criminal wou
- result in making q check being pTa
ideally certified when given.
Samuel cohen. CT Richmond. al
4 SPOKE or the necessity of prprecfi'
III for the merchant John ~. Seore
IT.. OF Norfolk representing q
- Credit Meas Association and COME
~. torerE' ard Jobbers Association
cd norfolk. went into the bin az ieng'
fand suggested many valuable chang
" EdWard r. lgenbrun. OF Petersburg
a ~ Warner. % Lyncfours; "
clarke. yr.. OF Richmond. and +
Mlller. % Richmond. also pointed 9
defects that the law ought 20 RENEE
snt Police Commissioner Christopher IA
Ming. Jr-. pointed out that there 4
many eases OF larceny UDcfr the @
cltlOns outlined 30 the merchants n
the law did ret reach Action viii
taken later % the committee on
b.lia