The Hokitika Guardian MONDAY, OCTOBER 9. 1929. BANKING PRINCIPLES AND HISTORY.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 October 1922, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian MONDAY, OCTOBER 9. 1929. BANKING PRINCIPLES AND HISTORY.

“Hanking in the well-oiled hinge upon which our wonderful system of credit works,’’ stated Mr H. F. O. Twigden. in u lecture on banking to the furniture trades section of the 'Employers’ Federation at Auckland recently (reports tile “N.Z. Herald’’.) This provided a convenient summing up of the functions of hanking as applied to modern conditions. Hut hanking in a more or less elementary way was known as far hack as 1000 8.0., while the first system of payment by cheque was originated by the Romans in 352 B.C. Hut the greatest financial institution in the wpijd to-day, the Rank pf England, did n«{ come jntn bring, mjt!! l(!9'b An Interesting i>nint mn<lo V tlm wfis tlwt tile

stntute of limitations applied equally to the bank’s debts as to an ordinary trade liability. Thus a customer’s claim to monies left by him in a bank for over six years untouched might be barred under the statute. In New Zealand such sums came under the headi-' ing of the Unclaimed Monies Act, 1908 I and after certain formalities had been complied with, reverted to the Public Account. It was also useful to know , 1 that money held by a hanker could be attached by means of a garnishee order, the effect of which was to tie up all such monies until the debt was ss- ' tistied. In one well-known case a sum of £OBOO was thus tied up, although the debt involved was only £6OO. The lecturer proceeded to a detailed con- ' sideration of cheques, their various forms and the safeguards which they could he made to provide. If not presented within a reasonable time a cheque became what was known as “stale.” What was a reasonable time was a- question of custom, and, in New Zealand, -six months was the usual limit, after which a banker would refuse payment on a cheque. After indicating the effect of crossing a cheque, the speaker pointed out that ordinary crossing did not limit the negotiability of a cheque, which might be transferred again and again. But the addition of the words “not negotiable”, had a very important effect. Possession of such a cheque was not presumptive evidence of title and such endorsement protected the drawer against the cheque getting into wrong hands. In such a case, the drawer could not be made liable for the amount of the the cheque, and tradesmen should therefore lie careful of accepting such a credit document from strangers, and conversely, to protect themselves they should mark cheques not intended to he cashed immediately, as “not negotiable.”