The Gazette 1918-19

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

[JANUARY, 1919

of a bank for advice given to customers regarding investments. The case is further important in that it establishes what many may possibly regard as of far-reaching effect in Nisi Prius practice, viz. :—That notwith standing the omission of the Defendant in an action to ask for a direction on the ground that there was no evidence upon which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal, on a motion for a new trial, is not precluded from considering the question of no evidence, and in a proper case maj' order judgment to be entered for the defendant notwithstanding such omission. The decision was grounded on the English Order LVIIL, R. 4. There is a corres ponding Irish Rule (see Supreme Court Rules, 1905, Order LVIIL, R. 4, Wylie, p. 784). Cheque—Stoppage of Payment. An action recently tried before Mr. Justice Lawrence deals with an important question as to the right of a drawer of a cheque to stop payment. A customer of a bank having drawn a cheque on his bankers for £100 gave notice to the branch of the bank on which the cheque was drawn to stop payment. The notice was duly received by the branch before the cheque was presented for payment. The payee of the cheque presented the cheque for payment at another branch of the same bank, and the manager of that branch paid the cheque, admittedly in good faith and without any notice of the stoppage given to the branch on which it had been drawn. It was decided that the bank was entitled to recover the amount of the cheque from the drawer. (London Provincial and South Western Bank, Ltd. v. Buszard, reported Times Law Reports, Vol. XXXV., 142.)

Banking Law. Two important and generally interesting cases in Banking Law are reported in the current number of the House of Lords Reports. In the London Joint Stock Bank, Ltd. v. Macmillan, 1918, A.C. 777, the facts were simple. A firm who were customers of the Bank entrusted to a confidential clerk the duty of filling up their cheques for signature. The Clerk filled up a cheque for petty expenses of the office payable to bearer ; the space in which the amount of the cheque is usually written in words was left completely blank, and in the space allotted for the figures the number " 2 " was writted at such a distance from the symbol " £ " that it WF.S possible to insert figures both before and after the figure "2." A member of the firm signed the cheque in that condition, and the clerk having written in the words One Hundred and Twenty Pounds and altered the figures to £120, cashed the cheque for that amount. It was admitted that when the cheque was presented for payment there was nothing on the face of the cheque or otherwise to induce any suspicion that the cheque had been tampered with. The Bank brought an action claiming a declaration that they were entitled to debit the firm with the full amount of the cheque, and judgment was given for the defendants on the ground that they had not been negligent in signing the cheque, and if there was negligence it was not the proximate cause of the loss. The Court of Appeal in England unanimously affirmed the judgment. On Appeal to the House of Lords, the judgment was reversed, and the old case of Young v. Grote (1827), 4 Ring. 253, on the same point was approved. The principle established by the decision is that a customer of a bank in drawing a cheque must take reasonable and ordinary precautions against forgery. The judgments contain a valuable exposition of the law in the relations of banker and customer. Another case of interest in Banking Law is Banbitry v. Bank of Montreal, reported 1918, A.C. 626. The judgments of the Lords deal exhaustively with the question of the liability

ALL communications connected with THE GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should be addressed to the Secretary of the Society, Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin