Year: 1871

A case of considerable importance TO the CONNER
cial community was tried on Friday last in the
Marine Court before Judge Shea. The question at
issue turns entirely upon the duties OF notales
public and In wha. they may not ACT up or
exceed these duties. As q general thing this Is
subject not much inquired into understood and
from this cause, perhaps more Than any other,
sometimes compes appeal to the courts for adjudi-
cation.


The present arises from an action Instituted
by Joseph Derrckson and ii. A. Bartlett against
Henry r. 0rvis. The action was brought by the
plaintiffs, paper merchants, No. 80 Beekman street,
this city, TO recover damages against the
defendant notary public, and clerk in the
Security Bank, for protesting a note without OIL
clally presenting 1t for payment. II appears that
Mr. Bartlett, one OF the plaintiffs, made the In
question, for the sum OF Ss4s So payable the order
OF William J. Dane, who transferred 1T TO parties In
New Hampshire. The note dated Jaly IL, 1870,
and payable two months after date at the plaintiffs
store, No so Beekman street. 1t fell due on the l4th
September, and OH that date the plaintiffs as they
allege IN their testimony, ready 10 redeem it II
presented for payment, and had for that
purpose a certified check on the Broadway
Bank. The note as the plaintiffs alleged
had not been presented Tor payment, and TO their
great surprise they learned, next day. that It was
protested by che defendant, who alleged in his pro-
test that II had been presented and payment refused.
The plaintiffs, the payee OF the noie, and several
attaches OF the plaintiffs store, were examined as
TO the presentation or the note, all Of whom tesu-
fed that no demand was made on the 14th II ap-
peared that the defendant did not present the note
personally, but sent 1t by youth, sixteen years Old,
who was clerk IN the Security Bank, and not in the
employment of the defendant. The young man tes-
titled that he took the note TO No. so BeeKman street
and demanded payment on 1t, and was told by some
one behind the counter that Mr.. Bartlett the maker,
was out OF town, and that it would be attended 10
the next day, upon which representation he TOOK the
note back TO the defendant, who had IT pI otested
the next day. Mr.. Bartlett corroborated by several
witnesses, testified that he was not out OF town
The l4th but in and out OF the store all day. and
remained II the store from three 10 Six O'Clock in
the afternoon, when as was alleged by the defend
ant, the noie was presented Tor payment After the
testimony was closed MS Honor Judge Shea de-
nvered The following


GENTLEMEN OF TIE JURY-This is very impor-
tant case and one that calls In a special sense for
case Is public officer. and, being such, charge
you that all services done by him in his Official capa-
city should be, prad dce, considered as In harmony
WI II his Official OATH The presumption Is that he is
fit TO perform and has performed honestly and
faithfully, the duties devolving upon hun, and you
must start with that presumption. violation OF
Official DUTY by notary public Is by stalute made
q grave offence. There are few more responsible
ofices with which commercial community has to
Go than that OF notary public. Upon the lntel-
gent and faithful performance OF the duties dcvolv-
Inq upon such an ollcer depends at times the repu-
taton OF business men, and any delinquency on The
part of such an officer In the discharge OF his duties
and which occasions injury TO others, constitutes
cause OF legal redress against him, and Tor which
he should be held responsible. The statute is very
explicit concerning the duties OF notarles pubic as
TO the presentation OF commercial paper for pay
ment, its protest, &c. (Tne Court here quoted
the statute relative 10 the duties OF no.
| tary public. The defendant in this case
charged with grave misconduct in the discharge
OF his Official duty, which misconduct Is alleged to
have had injurious effect, tending 10 inure the
character OF the plaintiffs, young men, IN their bUsl
ness relations. pray you to give prominence to


this phase OF the case charge you, as law, that 10
say OF trader


or has permitted an act 10 be done from which in
solvency might be reasonably inferred, is lbellous
and in such case 1t Is not necessary to prove
special damages 10 sustain an action at law. Where
such an inference may inJure the business reputa
ton OF trader he himself knows not. IL spreads
insdlously and silently in the business community
IN which he deals and may affect his credit to
ruinous degree, and yet no proof may be eiicited
upon which special damages could be intelligioly
predlcated. The injury accomplished Is general,
seldom special


THE REPUTATION OF A BUSINESS MAN


in business community is one Of the most tender
and delicate relations OF society with which we can
DEAL the sacredness OF which all business men SEN
sllively appreciate. We are not at liberty to tribe
with 1t, because even casual remark might greatly
atectit, 50 that the notes OF business man might be
thrown out of bank when lodged there for discount,
and yet the cause TO him might be unknown. should
you md after due consideration OF the case, i'll
favor Of the plaintiffs, you will be careful 10 look at
III,
| may not exceed what might be considered far
| compensation; but II you ind tAat malice exists
damages and give exemplary damages, IN order to
| deter others IRON committing like offences.
THE WHOLE OF TIE CASE DEFENDS


upon the fact whether payment OF the note de-


maaded at the proper place and on TIE proper day.
| charge you that TO go into the store where the
/ note was made payable and ask the porter or any


chance person IN tue store for payment neither
presentation Of the note nor deaand for It's pay
/ ment The maker must be sought, of the book
keeper, or such person in tile place as business
4 man would call upon to demand payment on bill


or note. mat and that only is an intellgible
! mand. / would not intimate in the slightest degree


that the boy VINO says he presented the note NJ the
desk in the pIalntllls' store told an unrutn The
question you to consider IS did he there that
day with the note 10 question and In proper busl-
ness manner intelligently make his errand known,
so that the responsible parties In The store knew
what he wanted. You have heard the evidence
upon tnat point. 1t is question OF fact for you TO
determine, and upon which intimate no opinion.
IL is not necessary for me to charge you as to the
delegation Of power FROM the notary 70 the boy;
there Is dispute by the respective counsel 10
that point II you find that there


A PROPER DEMAND MADE,


una ,na, WIZ end Ihe ina5ef ana your verdict Wil pe
per demand was not made, that the attention OF The
proper parties was not directed 10 the demand-and
the plalntis evidence Is 10 the eject that check
was ready TO redeem the note when presented-then
your verdict viii be for the plaintiff tbs for you to
say which OF these conflicting statements Is true As
TO the


QUESTION OF DAMAGES,


no special damages have been alleged. The law
does not require proof OF special damages to NAM
tain Ike this because IL Is not reasonable
expect other than general damages OF proof
from which general injury might reasonably be
ierred TO test the injury Inflicted. The jurisdiction
Of this court IS limited 10 $1,000. DO not intend
intimate by that, should you find fcr the plaintiffs,
any special amount. That is a matter which Will be
entirely governed by your own honest, Intelligent
convictions as business men. There Is no evidence,
so lar az have seen, or express malice or Of any
intent 10 hfict an injury upon the plaintiff The
injury, If any, resulted from placing dependence
upon The boy who entrusted with this important
duty and IL Is for you 10 say whether ne performed
that duty lntehgibly or unintehgiply


Ar.r.l fcrf fl,n1 1aln ntr,lifi "a