DRAWING OF CHEQUES.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3420, 26 February 1920, Page 6

DRAWING OF CHEQUES.

ALMOST CRIMINAL CARELESS- . NESS. ’ __,.._. A utter in the N.Z.-» Accountant drew from the Mercantile Gazette a leading article on the subject, both of which are as folloW3=‘-' Sir,-—-I have read many letters in your columns about the endorsement of cheques. I have never seen, however, anything in the‘way of advice to drawers of cheques that when they make a cheque payable to order they should be careful to correctly state the name of The payee in the body. 1 presume persons make cheques payable to order, to ensure having an acknowledgment. If so, why does a person who wants to pay £5 to “John Brown and Co., Ltd." maek his cheque payable to “Mr J. Brown” or order, or to “J. Brown and Sonsf’ or any one of the many variations that might be made on such '3. name‘? One would? think he would want his acknowledgment from the firm under their proper‘

name. Again, why are people so stupid as to ”make' :1 cheque payable to “Mrs Brown” or order, or as your last corresponden~t' puts it, to “Mrs W. Black” or order‘? I have seen men who certainly ought ‘to know better, make cheques so payable. If people would be more -careful to correctly insert the payee’s name, a great many of thesg questions that are so often referred to you would be avoided, and a great deal of “rroubl-e saved by the endorsers. In my; business I have to use as many as ten varieties of signature ‘to endorse chequesybecause they are made payable to so many variations of our name. Even business men are frequent sinners in this matter, and I ‘think, perhaps, an article from you would help 1 to educate them.——l am, yours faithfully,‘ ~ -. ' ‘U ’ Wang;anui. ‘ !NiEßF.‘.S'l.‘l£?

]We have dealt .vitAh t‘.li.3.subj—3:Z in our leading arti3le.—Edit.or, 3. Accountantfi’) Er‘ DIRAYVING OF CHEQUES. ' What a. correspondent I‘em'3.rks in this week’s issue concerning the lackadaisical manner in which cheques are drawn is quite true. We should imagine that if thp banks were con-sult-ed we would learn that in '3 very high percentage, if .not'in the majority of cases, cheques are drawn in favour of persons and firms in anything but the correct names. In our own experience we must confess that we are in entire-accord with what “Interested” says. It is a simple matter when drawing out a cheque to correctly indicate the title of the drawee. As a rule the printed invoice for which payment is made is available, land even if such is not. the case, it is not a difii—eult. matter to ascertain the correct initials of a person or the proper title in the case of a firm. In addressing correspondence to an individual or to =l. firm, it is Ijegarded‘as bad taste not to have the proper name or 'title_ In the case of cheques this rule should also-

stand good. 1 Apart from the matter of courtesy,» however, there is the question of protecting the drawer. Obviously if onel is desirous of paying a. sum of money ?to J. S. Jones and Co., Ltd., it is folly to make out a cheque to the order of John Jones, particularly as it! usually happens to bc"a cheque that is‘ not‘ crossed. By chance the document might fall into the possession of John Jones that it was never intended for. It is not hard to conceive of the possibilities whereby the drawer might have to- pay out the money twice and have no redress. In previous issues We have drawn attention to «the importance of crossing cheques, ‘and especially with respect 'to adding the words “not negotiable.” Just recently We perused a cheque running into four figures That‘ was merely drawn to a number, and did not possess even a simple crossing. To our mind such action is almost criminal,‘ and it offers a big temptation to those handling the -transaction. We are‘ inclined to think that most firms who ‘display such carelessness in the making out of cheques have reason to rcongratulate ~-themselves - more on the-ho'nesty and.trustvvortlliness of-theirv'stafi's’.-tha:rlHon'tl_e sagaeity dis-played-invthe paryizng.-out ofivthe mone:y.--That thereoazre-,notranor'e cases of pilfe"in£"~and» OlnboZ;.’i_Li.€HlCntv is due large’ 13’ 'SO the moral integrity of our pco~ ple. rfherer ,-(is Q.l§§flouhg.s:j;}. _amp]e 3‘3°l-‘e ' £"l"’*¢l*'9n[Hlall-i{mrlaii(;qu;._,or£,f funds in scores of-easesmighanlrs itntho cure--I'95S W36’ m'“Wi"fl9b[.§hequc3E.are dl*3.\\'n. ' Wit3h:7Fi§ld’i74id“‘3:lsji7o¥» small firms Where ,-the--mnnbeg of cheques drawn is 9~'Siß3i’r.e&l3.4liP€ there is some ex» cuse £973‘ 13!/flax System; but-‘the practice. of malufngpeut cheques in any dld way 15 nobrenfioned-._.t.0-.rn,lnor pQQple_ Com cérns that draw .hundl'eds‘Qf,.thouSandS of cheques in thecourso, ofi a-year are equally-careless; Members of.‘..th9ipl.D:_ fession \vould.»do well to correct this evil as far as possib-19, and draw clicuts’ attention ‘to tilt) danger of file practice. . . , - C3.I'€I(.‘SS!ICSS in Ifegjn-R .f 0 (_,01.1.(,,3,£

. '\.___, l names and -titles in cheques is not the only shortcoming that must be levelled at many commercial houses, Many cheques are so badly drawn that it would be a simple matter to add a word and at figure, and in this ‘wey secure a far larger payment than Wzis intended. We have seen '3. cheque that purported to be for eight pounds that could quite easily have been made into eighty. The utmost care should alWt‘x_VS be exercised in this respect. While a rogue will -sometimes get the better of us, no matter what precautions are taken, it is only inviting trouble to put telnptlation in the way of those who are :1. trifle weak. Most crime is cmmnit.e:l because the opportunity is: presented. Loose methods of handling cash lieve often been responsible for men getting into trouble, and it is the same with cheques. We are indebted. to “Interested”; for drawing a't'tention to this topic,‘ and We are sure his letter will be perused with intere§i"by our readers.