Common Pleas.
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2917, "word_count": 519, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9837999939918518], "ccnet_perplexity": [1424.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



SEPT. T.-Merchants Bank, &C. vs. Eiihu Pedrick.-
This case already noticed was resumed when counsel
summed up, and his Honor charged It has been hitherto
held that in where the word memorandum" is
written the margin Of check that such check is not
considered negotiable at the Bank but as evidence OF
Indebtedness


This action instituted blythe above bank to
damages from the defendant for alleged fraudulent
alteration of a check drawn by party named William
AIacfarland with the intention of defrauding the bank
Mcfarland introduced Witness and testified
that the 9th of May, s44, he gave the defendant
memorandum check for 1916 90 in consideration of
bill of cheese bought of said defendant by witness


This check it appeared was made on the sth OF
May, upon which day witness testified that he una
BILE to pay and gave defendant another check for the
same amount upon the Merchants Bank, dated llth
May, but payable at order 1t further appeared that
the lth OF May the check presented at the bank
by defendant, with the word memorandum" which
written at the top OF the check trimmed off, and was
paid by the teller, although Macarland had no funds in
the bank at the time Macfarandsas testified that the
check was altered after he gave to defendant suese
queny the discount clerk OF the bank went to defen-
dan told him Mcfarland had funds in bank his ac-
count having been closed for several months that the
check paid by mistake and requested him to refund
which he do and said the bank must look to
Mcfarland.


Defence put in was that Macfarand bought the cheese
for cash. to be paid the st Of May; that he subse-
queny got until the st and 4th OF May to turn around
and sell bills of exchange drawn against the cheese and
that he did realize tl00 said cheese, on bill Of
exchange drawn against Robinson 4 Co., to whom IT
shipped Not being ready pay the 4th inst Mac
tarand gave the first memorandum check and on the Sth
gave its place the check in suit 1t was shown,
however by clerk of defendant that the latter was
not memorandum check, but given in the same
condition precisely shown in Court.


The Court charged that regarded the legal effect OF
the word memorandum which, it was alleged had
been appended to the check the fact Of its being written
not did not affect tho merits of the way
the other There was nothing in law to invadate such
instrument as a check a bank negotiable paper
whether the word memorandum written thereon or
not. The jury had to consider whether the check
at all altered and next, if altered was it done
fiaudulenty and by defendant but whether the word
memorandum was written not on the check in
question, the jury had to decide according to the law
which recognized distinction between the ordinary
and the memorandum check. Verdict for defendant.
Before Judge Ingraham.


jury cases being ready in the second branch Of this
court the Court adjourned.


Court Calendar.