SHARP PRACTICE ON THE PART OF A BANK.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 44, 17 February 1876, Page 4

SHARP PRACTICE ON THE PART OF A BANK.

On the 10th December last (says tbe Melbourne correspondent of tbe Otago Daily Times), a gentleman engaged in stock operations under the verandah, received ia the course of business, a cheque, whicb was passed through bis banker for payment on tbe same day. He beard nothing further of it until the second post delivery oa the following Monday, when notice of dishonor, couched in the usual terms, was received by him, accompaoied by a request that the cheque should be taken up. He immediately went, to his banker's, and handed in his own cheque for that whicb waa dishonored, whicb Matter was given over to him. On looking. nt tbe cheque, he, lo his surprise, saw that the signature was cancelled. He called attention to the fact, but was met by a sort of evasive answer, which did not mean anything.

On examing still further, however, he again called out, " Stop, what is the meaning of this ? Here is the paid stamp of the drawer's bank on this cheque. It has not been dishooore J, and I want my own back " Without a word more the eood cheque was returned to the gentleman, aud the dishonored cheque taken back by his banker, to be returned to the bank wbioh apparently in regular course paid the cheque for their customer, but finding two days afterwards that a loss was likely to accrue, adopted this rather questionable mode of throwing the loss on au innocent individual, who would certainly have had to submit had he not been quick enough to detect the ruse that was attempted to be put upon him. Naturally enough the publication of these particulars caused other customers of banks to look pretty closely into their transactions, and iv a day or two another paragraph appeared stating that another person had found, on examining a cheque that had been returned to bim as dishonored, that the signature bad been cancelled, and the cheque marked for payment and paid. He took it to his bank, and demanded that the cheque should be properly placed to his account. This was refused. He therefore threatened that he would take action against the bank, on which the cheque was quietly taken and the matter dropped. All this is very sharp practice on the part of the banks. It is very 'cute, no doubt, but it is a kind of 'cuteness that is not easily distinguished from dishonesty.