按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
as to deceive not only the bank but the drawer of the
check as to the genuineness of his own signature。〃
The main facts are included in the portion of the
opinion cited：
〃The plaintiffs kept a large and active account
with the defendant； and this action is to recover an
alleged balance of a deposit due to them from the
bank。 The plaintiffs had in their employ a clerk
named Davis。 It was the duty of Davis to fill up
the checks which it might be necessary for the
plaintiffs to give in the course of business； to make
corresponding entries in the stubs of the check book
and present the checks so prepared to Mr。 Critten；
one of the plaintiffs； for signature； together with
the bills in payment of which they were drawn。
After signing a check Critten would place it and
the bill in an envelope addressed to the proper
party； seal the envelope and put it in the mailing
drawer。 During the period from September； 1897；
to October； 1899； in twenty…four separate instances
Davis abstracted one of the envelopes from the
mailing drawer； opened it； obliterated by acids the
name of the payee and the amount specified in the
check； then made the check payable to cash and
raised its amount； in the majority of cases； by the
sum of 100。 He would draw the money on the
check so altered from the defendant bank； pay the
bill for which the check was drawn in cash and
appropriate the excess。 On one occasion Davis
did not collect the altered check from the defendant；
but deposited it to his own credit in another
bank。 When a check was presented to Critten for
signature the number of dollars for which it was
drawn would be cut in the check by a punching instrument。
When Davis altered a check he would
punch a new figure in front of those already appearing
in the check。 The checks so altered by
Davis were charged to the account of the plaintiff s；
which was balanced every two months and the
vouchers returned to them from the bank。 To
Davis himself the plaintiffs； as a rule； intrusted the
verification of the bank balance。 This work having
in the absence of Davis been committed to another
person； the forgeries were discovered and Davis
was arrested and punished。 It is the amount of
these forged checks； over and above the sums for
which they were originally drawn； that this action
is brought to recover。 The defendant pleaded
payment and charged negligence on plaintiff's part；
both in the manner in which the checks were
drawn and in the failure to discover the forgeries
when the pass book was balanced and the vouchers
surrendered。 On the trial the alteration of the
checks by Davis was established beyond contradiction
and the substantial issue litigated was that
of the plaintiff's negligence。 The referee rendered
a short decision in favor of the plaintiffs in which
he states as the ground of his decision that the
plaintiffs were not negligent either in signing the
checks as drawn by Davis or in failing to discover
the forgeries at an earlier date than that at which
they were made known to them。
〃The relation existing between a bank and a
depositor being that of debtor and creditor； the
bank can justify a payment on the depositor's account
only upon the actual direction of the depositor。
'The question arising on such paper （checks）
between drawee and drawer； however； always relate
to what the one has authorized the other to do。
They are not questions of negligence or of liability
to parties upon commercial paper； but are those of
authority solely。 The question of negligence
cannot arise unless the depositor has in
drawing his cheek left blanks unfilled； or by some
affirmative act of negligence has facilitated the
commission of a fraud by those into whose
hands the check may come。' （Crawford v。 West
Side Bank； 100 N。 Y。 50。） Therefore； when the
fraudulent alteration of the checks was proved； the
liability of the bank for their amount was made
out and it was incumbent upon the defendant to
establish affirmatively negligence on the plaintiff's
part to relieve it from the consequences of its
fault or misfortune in paying forged orders。 Now；
while the drawer of a check may be liable where he
draws the instrument ill such ill incomplete state
as to facilitate or invite fraudulent alterations； it
is not the law that he is bound so to prepare the
cheek that nobody else call successfully tamper
with it。 （Societe Generale v。 Metropolitan Bank；
27 L。 T。 ＇N。 S。＇ 849； Belknap v。 National Bank
of North America； 100 Mass。 380） In the present
case the fraudulent alteration of the checks was
not merely in the perforation of the additional
figure； but in the obliteration of the written name
of the payee and the substitution therefor of the
word 'Cash。' Against this latter change of the
instrument the plaintiffs could not have been expected
to guard； and without that alteration it
would have no way profited the criminal to raise
the amount。 。 。 。〃
A Pinkerton case of international repute； best
known as the 〃Becker〃 case； included the successful
〃raising〃 of a check by chemical means from
12 to 22；000。 The criminal author of this stupendous
fraud was Charles Becker； 〃king of forgers；〃
who as an all round imitator of any writing and manipulator
of monetary instruments then stood at the
head of his 〃profession。〃 Arrested and taken to
San Francisco he was brought to trial。 Two of his
〃pals〃 turned state's evidence； and Becker was sentenced
to a life term。 Through an error on the part
of the trial judge he secured a new trial on an appeal
to the Supreme Court。 The jury disagreed on a second
trial； but on the third trial he was convicted。
Becker pleaded for mercy； and as he was an old
man and showed signs of physical break…down； the
court was lenient with him。 Seven years was his
sentence。
After his incarceration in San Quetin prison； he described
in one sentence how he had risen to the head
of the craft of forgers。 〃A world of patience； a heap
of time； and good inks；that is the secret of my success
in the profession。〃
On completing his sentence； his reply to the question；
〃What was the underlying motive which induced
you to forge？〃 was one word； 〃Vanity！〃
The detailed facts which follow are from the 〃American
Banker：〃
〃On December 2； 1895； a smooth…speaking man；
under the name of A。 H。 Dean； hired an office in
the Chronicle building at San Francisco； under the
guise of a merchant broker； paid a month's rent in
advance； and on December 4 he went to the Bank
of Nevada and opened an account with 2；500
cash； saying that his account would run from
2；000 to 30；000； and that he would want no
accommodation。 He manipulated the account so as
to invite confidence； and on December 17 he deposited
a check or draft of the Bank of Woodland；
Cal。； upon its correspondent； the Crocker…
Woolworth Bank of San Francisco。 The amount was paid
to the credit of Dean；