Year: 1871

On November IA, 1885, United Sratcs Treasury
certificate OF deposit for $4,000 in gold was stolen
from Messrs. Verlluven Knobauch, bankers, SO
Exchange place. Handbills setting forth this fact
were printed on the day OF the robbery and duly
distributed among the banks ana banking instItu-
tions and brokers Of the city. Advertisements were
likewise published In the papers, and the Sub.
Treasury was also notified OF the robbery. The
printed announcements stated that q United States
Treasury gold check for s5,ooo No. 22,127 G, had
been stolen instead Of gold certificate for this
amount and Of this number and lettering. In Janu-
ary 1887, the stolen certificate presented at the
Manufacturers' National Bank to be changed, tho
party presenting 1t stating that he came
from Brown Brothers Co.. N the same build
ing; that he was purchasing q bill OF
exchange and they could not change It, and had
sent HIM thereto have it changed Five ST. 900 GER
tincate were given for It, On the succeeding Mon
day the certificate was presented at tho Sub-Trea-
sury for payment by clerk Of the Manufacturers
National Bank, and being detected as the one which
had been stolen from Messrs. verhuven q Knob
LAUGH payment was refused. The delivery o. the
same was then demanded Of the officers of the bank,
and such delivery being refused suit was brought
to recover the same.


Messrs. verhuven 4 Knoblauch. the plaintirs, set
forth their complaint that the defendants did not
acquire possession OF such certificate In the usual
course OF business or from any regular dealer but
from person who was an entire stranger TO them.
and that previous to their acquiring possession they
had notice OF pialntis title to saidcertitca.e ana Its
theft The bank set up, on the contrary,
that the stolen certificate changed by the cashier
Of the defendants over their counter in the usual
course OF business and In perfect good faith, aud
without realizing any profit therefrom giving dollar
for dollar therefor, and without any other possible





the certificate for change The result Of this trial
WAS that the Judge held that as matter OF law the
defendants were emitted TO verdict, and that there
was no question OF fact Tor the jury. to which the
also requested 10 60 to the jury on several prop0si
tions, and that the jury should IN that connection
requests In each case were also refused and plain
urfs' counsel separately excepted. Judgment on
the verdict having been perfected, the plaintiffs ap-
pealed.


The case accordingly came up for argument yes
terday before Judges lngraham, Barnard and Car
doZo, holding General Term OF the Supreme Court.


Mr.. James W. Gerard Jr., made lengthy and able
argument for the plaintifs and appellants He in
sisted that the judge the lower court erred in his
decision that as matter Of law the defendants
entitled TO verdict and In his refusal 20 allow the


e g TO ao 5 az ne Sy csr


ceded proof bona fdes IN the adverse holder was
essential to defeat plaintiffs original title, and
that the defendants having taken the paper
out the usual court Of business the additional bur
den was on them TO prove the bona 1de, which bur





evidence. He urged that whether that bona nde
existed was emlnenty question OF TACT, which lG


was the province OF the Jury TO determine. lie also


contended that the rule Is well settled that In case


OF dispute as to tile to personal prone rty where


there IS only evidence TO warrant Jury ~ inIerring


actual notice from circumstances, even though very
slight opposing proof would repe the presumption,


the question Of good fata Is for the jury The ques-


ton Of the secretion OF the knowledge or notice,


actual or constructive, rs with that OF the analogous
case OF negligence, ne protested was always
question of fact 1or the jury, though It's legal
effect when established on admitted may be ques-


ton OF law. After citing. numerous authorities sub


stantiatlng this view or the case he proceeded "


show the effects OF the holding OF the lower court


next the facrs proved, next that the excuse OF mis-
description III the handbill was ingenious but


sive, and lastly, that the eject OF tho jndge's ruling
was virtually To recognize us rule that receiver


OF stolen negotiable note with notice OF the theft
can recover against tho real owner because he
happens to pay value for IL, and that the Whole
defence was an afterthought intended TO obvate
the effect Of gross careicssness, for which the


defendants were In law responsible. lie, therefore,
asked a new trial.


For the defence 1t was strennously urged that the
certificate came 10 them In the ordinary course or


business; that II was changed In good iaith TINT
tiGcate: that In the absence Of all proof OF maa
des there was ne question to 20 70 the jury that
IL was the fault aud neglect OF the defendants that


they did not protect themselves against loss ~
payable to our 0rder' over tho endorsement OF
Mr. Blrdsa such loss by THEFT would have been Ina


possible: that the emily test that could be adopted
was whether the bank took the certificate 10 bad
submitted to jury, anu therefore no necessity for
new trial.


Tne Court pelow held that as the defendants had
had sufficient notice Of the theft they were pro-


tected, which view was sustained ~ this Court on
the appeal.