The Fletcher Bill Cases.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6061, 7 May 1891, Page 2

The Fletcher Bill Cases.

The Wellington Post of Friday says : — The Court of Appeal gave judgment yesterday in two cases which are of great in- = : • terest to bankers and the commercial com- * ■'■ munity generally. The facts of the cases are, shortly, as follows :— One Fletcher, a blacksmith in Napier, possessed of considerable means, gave a number of promissory notes to one 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 bonafide holders for value. It was alleged by the executors of Fletcher that these "'% ':>. promissory notes had originally /been made by Fletcher for small sums, and that they had been mjiterially altered by Parker, by the addition of words and ; figures, so as to represent promissory notes for several hundreds of pounds, For instance, ifc was said that a promis-/ sory note for L 175 was, when signed by - Fletcher, made for L 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 signed by Fletcher, the! upper line of the two usually left in the printed forms of promissory notes for the , amount was lefb blank, and was after-/ wards fraudulently filled in by Parker, These promissory notes were then discounted by Parker. In one *of the cases tbe jury found that the bank in taking ... the promissory notes Had exercised"' " ordinary care; and, in, the other,, that w the plaintiff, but; for His own want rf.iv care, would have discovered tlie alteration. On these Mings the plaintiffs in bothfv'V.! cases claimed judgment against the : defendants for the full amount;/ of the' promissory notes, on the ground that Fletcher, having enabled them to be issued in the form in which they came into the hands of the plaintiffs, could 'not be permitted t6 say that they were riot his promissory notes. In both cases the Court of Appeal docided against the plaintiffs One of the grounds, stated in, the judgments was that white one would be responsible to one's own banker for loss/^ arising through such negligence lie could . not be held responsible to any other banker, or to any individual, even if boiia fide holder for value. It is difficult for r". the commercial mind to grasp this" disi-.V tinction. It has hitherto been supppsfeS x that to promissory notes and other nego-' tiable instruments special privileges ware attached, and ifc has been fondly believed by mercantile men generally that any : person issuing a cheque or . promissory note wholly or partially blank .must accept the natural consequences i of : hiß § act. Hitherto it has been supposed that --A ?.'•? on presentation of a bill or promissory ;;- note for discount all that the bankertwWVcalled upon to do was to satisfy, hiittsejfei:i of the genuineness of the signature. 6n#H-: the general regularity of the instrumeht r* on its face. Now an additional/ ancl : >£ practically impossible duty :has":2been;-"-imposed upon him in every c^se in:>hidh; : :: / the amount in the instruments^ is;^^^/'* pressed in more than one word: ''-} Inievety^v'i such case it will be necessary to ascertain beyond all doubt that the instrument ii«;.V\ presented is in the form in which it left 5' the maker's hands. To us it appears that the decision of the Court of Appeal hag stripped negotiable instruments; o£ thefoi: negotiability, and has opened the dooi to easy frauds. It is satisfactory to- know, however, that there is some likelihood, of ■ the oases being taken to the Privy M Council. . : :>*•: 9i