Banks' Duties to Clients.

Feilding Star, Issue 123, 22 November 1895, Page 3

Banks' Duties to Clients.

Mr Justice Holroyd and a jnry of six were occupied in the Supreme Court, Bendigo, recently, hearing a case brought by Montague Levy, a licensee of the Shamrock Hotel, against the Union Bank of Australia, claiming ±1000 damages for libel in the wrongful dishonouring of his cheque for £3 9s, which he paid to L. Stemwehr, of Melbourne, on the 10th of June last, in settlement of a trade account. The cheque was drawn on the bank's own printed form, plaintiff having an account in the local branch. Steinwehr paid it into his account in a Melbourne branch for collection, aud a day or two afterwards it was returned to him with a notice to the following effect : — " Cheque lodged for collection on your account has been returned unpaid, and amount has been placed to debit of your account this day. Mr Levy's cheque U.B.A. £S 9s enclosed. This account now closed. Refer to Mr Levy." Mr Coldhani, for the bank, argued that there was no dishonorment, as the cheque was not presented at the Bendigo branch, where ample funds were to Levy's credit to meet it. The bank was under no obligation to plaintiff to present the cheque at Bendigo, though there might have bsen a breach of duty towards Steinwehr. Regarding the libel, he contended that the notice to Steinwehr was a privileged communication. Mr Box, for the plaintiff, said he would drop the count in the plaint relative to disbonorment, but argued that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial damages for libel. His Honor summed up in favor of the plaintiff, and after being locked np for an hoar and a half the jury intimated that they were unanimously in favor of a verdict for the plaintiff, and would give a five-sixths on the question of damages. Both sides agreed to take the verdict without waiting the statutory term of three hours. The jury then announced that they assessed the damages at £'350.