THE FLETCHER BILL CASES.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 8963, 4 May 1891, Page 3

THE FLETCHER BILL CASES.

(Evening Post, May 1.) The Court of Appeal gave judgment yesterday in two cases which are of great interest to baukers and the commercial community generally. Tbo facts of the cases are, shortly, as follows :— One Fletcher, a blacksmith in Napier, possessed of considerable means, pave a number of promissory notes to ouo Parker for the accommodation of the latter. Fletcher died while many of such promissory notes were current. These were held, some by banks, others by individuals, all bonajiut holders for value. It was alleged by the executors of Fletcher Ihnt these promissory notes hnd originally been made by Fletcher for small .sums, and that they had been materially altered by Parker, by the addition of words and figures, so us to represent promissory notes for several hundreds of pounds, For instance, it waß said that a promissory note for £175 was when signed by Fletcher, made for £5 only. It was contended by the executors and found by the jury that the promissory notes were in the handwriting of Parker, and that when Bignod by Fletcher, the npper line of thotwo usually left in the printed forms ot promissory votes for the amount was left blank, and was afterwards fraudulently filled in by Parker. Thcae promissory notes were then discounted by Parker. In one of the cases the jury found that the bank in taking the promissory notes had exercised ordinary care : and, in the other, that the plaintiff, but for his own want of care, would have discovered the alteration. On these findings the plaintiffs in both cases claimed judgment atrainst llio defendants for the tull amount of the promissory notes, on the ground thai Fletcher, having enabled them to be issued in the form is which they came into the hands of the plaintiffs, could not bo permitted to say that they were not bis promissory notes. In both cases tho Court of Appeal decided against the plaintiffs. One of (he grounds stated in the judgments was that while ono would be responsible to one's own banker for loss arising through such negligence he could not be held responsible to any other banker, or to any individual, even if bona fide holder lor value. It is difficult for the commercial mind to grasp this distinction. It has hitherto been supposed that to promissory notes and other negotiable instruments special privileges wore attached, and it has been fondly believed by mercantile men generally that any person issuing a cheque or promissory note wholly or partially J blank must accept the natural consequences of his act. Hitherto it has been supposed that on presentation of a hill or promissory note far discount all that the hanker was called upon to do was to efitisfy himself of the gcmiineucns ot the signature and the ticueral regularity ot tho instrument on its (ace. Now an idditional and practically impossible duty has been imposed upon him in every cose in which the amount in tho instruments is ex pressed in more than one word. In every such cam it will he necessary to ascertain beyond all doubt that the instrument aa presented is in the form in which it left the maker's hands. To us it appears that the_ decision of tho Court of Appeal has stripped negotiable instruments of their negotiability, and bos opened tho door to easy frauds. It is satisfactory to know, however, that there h some likelihood of the cases being taken to tho Privy Council.