THE LAW OF CHEQUES.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2556, 16 March 1877, Page 2

THE LAW OF CHEQUES.

We make the. following important ex-' tract on the above subject from th# ■ ' Australasian Insurance and Banking ■ ' Record':— ( ...... „ / , In the Australian Colonies nothing is?. more common than to hold orer cheques, for indefinite periods. In country districts cheqaes sometimes pass from hand to hand like bank-notes, p would oerer occur to the holder that delay in presentation vitiated the cheque itself, and, if the delay were a prolonged one, that the. drawer was absolved; from the com*, pulsion of providing for., it. „The; case of Vanee 1 r& Lowther lately came before the r Exchequer Division of the Supreme Courts The case is thus described by the London Economist:—" " Tbe main facts.Were that the defendant had giren a cheque, dated 2nd.March, in payment of a debt to Mr S. Bagnal', who handed it to a clerk in his employ, named Campbell; that this cleric absconded, and having altered the date of the cheque to 27th March; obtained cash for it from the plaintiffs,"to" whom he was known" !as haying . been in the. defendant's employ ,* and the cheque, on being 1 presented for payment at the beginning of i April, was refused, in consequence of directions to that effect baring been giren by the defendants immediately after the,: absconding of their clerk. \ The present^ . suit was then brought by the plaintiffs, on . the ground that they were, bond jitfe, . holders for ralue, and that the defendants 1 were -liable tip.them for the money. -,-ladefence, however, it was pleaded, among other grounds, that the alteration of the date of the cheque was mate*} rial, so as to avoid the instrument, and this view has been adopted uriani-, mously by the judges of the Exchequer,..- , Division.. Speaking as to the materiality.; : of the alteration, Baron Kelly.said thatitij . had tbe effect of postponing the date, at^, which the banker would be liable to "pjur :\ the cheque, from the 2nd to the 27th " March, and.tbe position of the holders of; the cheque would also be affected by H&Ma banker's failure, according to the date of - the cheque. Suppose that betweenparties living in the same town, a cheque - were drawn to be paid into a bank.jin. satisfaction of a debt due on the .'2nd . March, the banker would be bound to pay it on tho 2nd, and,the payee, bowncljo^ present it on the folliwing day ; and" if "the ' payee kept it until the 10th, or later, and -. it turned out that the banker had funds/ on the 2nd and not on the 10th, it is quite clear that the drawer would not be liable." Judgment was accordingly giren for tho defendant.