EYRE v M'DOWELL, Official Manager of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank. [Common Pleas]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1863
• Date: 08 May 1863
• Court: Common Pleas Division (Ireland)

Common Pleas

EYRE

and

M'DOWELL, Official Manager of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank.

Attwood v. MunningsENR 7 B. & C. 278.

Alexander v. MackenzieENR 7 B. & C. 283.

Stagg v. ElliotENR 12 C. B., N. S., 373.

Bramah v. RobertsENR 3 Bing., N. C., 963.

Brown v. ByersENR 16 M. & W. 252.

Kirke v. Bell 16 Q. B. 290.

Balfour v. ErnestENR 5 C. B., N. S., 601.

Ernest v. Nichols 6 H. L., N. S., 401.

Thompson v. BellENR 10 Exch. 10.

Forbes v. MarshallENR 11 Exch. 166.

Royal British Bank v. TurquandENR 6 El. & Bl. 327.

Gordon v. Sea Fire Life Assurance SocietyENR 1 H. & N. 599.

Bank of Australasia v. BrellatENR 6 Moo., P. C., 173.

Brandao v. BarnettENR 12 Cl. & Fin. 787.

Barnes v. Pennell 2 H. & of L. Cas. 528.

Prince v. Wales Assurance Company v. Harding ENR 9 El. & Bl. 183.

In re Burmester 9 Ir. Chan. Rep. 84.

Smith v. The Hull Glass CompanyENRENR 8 C. B. 668; S. C., 11 C. B. 897.

Dickenson v. ValpyENR 10 B. & C. 128.

Ernest v. Nichols 6 H. of L. Cas. 401.

314 COMMON LAW REPORTS. H. T. 1863. attested the documents as such attorney ; and that, in- doing so, Common Pleas there has been a compliance with the words of the 93rd General NOLAN V. GUMLEY. Order; and therefore the attestation is sufficient. On the whole therefore we are of opinion that the defendant's motion must be refused. E. T. 1863. April 17, 18. May 8. EYRE v. M'DOWELL, Official Manager of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank. Where, in an Trus was an action, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, action against the acceptor of as official manager of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank, to recover a bill of ex change, pur- the amount of a bill of exchange, dated 26th November 1855, for porting to be accepted "Per pro. the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank, W. K. manager," upon the issue raised upon a traverse of the acceptance, W. K., being called as a witness, was asked, on the part of the plaintiff, whether it was part of his business, as maÂnager, to accept bills of exchange for the said Bank? which was objected to by the defendant-Held, that the question was admissible. An entry, contained in a book belonging to the Bank, purporting to be a copy of a circular informing the customers of the Bank that W. K. had been appointed manager, and had been empowered to sign all documents and indorse all bills on account of the Bank, was admitted at the time as secondary evidence, on the part of the plaintiff, of the issuing of the original circular.-Held, that in the absence of evidence of the sending of the original to the customers of the Bank, that the evidence was inadmissible. The defendant's Counsel proposed to ask the manager of another Bank whether the bill of exchange sued on was one which, in the ordinary course of business, a Bank, according to banking usages, would accept for an inland customer ?-Held, that the question was proper. He also proposed to ask same witness whether a bill, accepted in the same way as the present, would, according to the course of trade and bankers, put a party upon inquiry as to the authority of an acceptance?-Held, that the question was proper. He also proposed to ask the same witness whether authority to indorse was authority to accept ?-Held, that the question was inadmissible. The Judge having told the jury that, if they believed that K., as manager of the Bank, signed the bill by direction of J. S., and that J. S. was a director at the time, the acceptance was binding on the Bank-Held, that having regard to the fact that the bill was accepted per procuration, and that the deed of partnership required three directors to form a Court, and empowered the Court of Directors to make regulations respecting the accepting of bills, that the direction was wrong. The fact of the knowledge, by the solicitor of a bone fide holder, but who has not acted for him in the particular matter, that a bill had been fraudulently accepted, is not evidence that the holder had notice of the fraud at the time of the usÂdorsement. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 315 £17,000, payable six months after date, drawn by John Sadleir, E. T. 1863. Common Pleas accepted " Per pro. the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank, William Kelly EYRE manager," and indorsed to the plaintiff. v. The defendant traversed the acceptance ; and also pleaded that M'DOWELL. the said Banking Company was induced to accept the said bill through the fraud of the said John Sadleir ; and that the plaintiff had notice of the said fraud when the said bill was first indorsed to himself by the said John Sadleir. The cause was tried at the Sittings after Trinity Term 1862, before KEOGH, J., when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subÂject to a bill of exceptions tendered by the defendant. William Kelly was examined, on the part of the plaintiff, and deposed that James Sadleir acted as director of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank, in and previous to May 1855 ; that no other person acted as director ; and he the said James Sadleir so acted from thence until the Bank suspended payment in February 1856 ; that the name and handwriting in the acceptance of the said bill of exchange was his William Kelly's name and handwriting ; that at the time he accepted said bill he the said William Kelly was manaÂger of the said Bank ; and thereupon the Counsel for the plaintiff proposed to ask was it part of the said witness's business, as such manager, to accept bills of exchange for the said Bank ; whereupon the Counsel for the defendant interposed, and insisted that the said question was not admissible to prove the authority of the said witÂness to accept bills for the said Bank; but the learned Judge held that the said evidence, so offered, was admissible in law ; whereupon the said question was put to the said witness, who answered the same in the affirmative, and deposed that it was part of his business as manager, as aforesaid, to accept bills of exchange for the said Bank. This was the first exception. William Kelly further deposed that he accepted the said bill of exchange in pursuance of a letter in writing from said James Sadleir to said witness, bearing date the 24th day of November 1855, and which letter was, by consent, made part of the bill of exceptions. He further deposed that a certain book, which was produced at the said trial, was one of the books of the said Bank, 316 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1863. kept at the office of the said Bank at Clonmel, and containing, Common Pleas amongst others, an entry in the words and figures following :- EYRE " 1853. I beg to inform you that Mr. William Kelly has been v. M'DOWELL. " appointed manager here, and has been empowered to sign all " documents and indorse all bills on account of this Bank. I inclose " specimen of his signature." It was admitted, on both sides, that notice to produce the original circular letter, of which said entry was a copy, was duly served on defendant's attorney in this action, before the trial, and said entry was tendered in evidence by the Counsel for the plaintiff; which evidence the defendant objected to. The Judge admitted the evidence to be received accordingly; thereupon the defendant took his second exception. Kelly further deposed that the printed words in the acceptance of the said bill of exchange-that is to say, the words " Per pro. TipÂperary Joint-stock Bank," were stamped with the stamp of the said Bank. Kelly was cross-examined by the Counsel for the defendant, and deposed that he was appointed in the month of March 1853 ; that he knew certain bank-books produced to him ; that there was nothing further in the books than the extract read, authorising him to accept bills ; that he (witness) saw the said circular letter, of which the entry aforesaid was a copy, on the day on which same was issued ; that witness could not say when he saw the copy of said circular, written in red ink in one of the bank-books produced to witness ; that witness could not say he saw said entry in red ink in the years 1855, 1856, 1857, or 1858 ; that witness could not say whether or not he ever signed his name on a blank stamp as acceptor of a bill ; that he could not say whether or not his acceptance of the bill sued on was written on a blank stamp ; that the drawer may not have signed it at the time ; that he (witness) would not swear it was not altogether blank ; that he thought it was not ; that when the said letter of the 24th of November 1855 was written, said James Sadleir was in London and the witness was in Clonmel ; that he (witness) believed that the bill was not drawn by John Sadleir at the time when the bill was accepted ; that COMMON LAW REPORTS. 317 witness's authority was from the said James Sadleir to send it to E. T. 1863. Common(leas P the said John Sadleir ; that he (witness) could not find any author- ity, signed by three directors, to him, to sign bills ; that witness EYRE v. never knew of three directors of said bank ; that he (witness) was McDOWELL. nominated by James Sadleir as manager, at £200 a-year ; that he (witness) considered he had authority to accept bills ; that he acÂcepted bills for the said Tipperary Bank; that said John Sadleir owed £200,000 to the said bank when the said bank stopped payÂment ; that his liabilities to the said bank at the date of the said bill were over £200,000 ; that witness knew Messrs. Morrogh and Kennedy ; that the said Morrogh & Kennedy were the solicitors of the said bank, and understood its affairs perfectly ; that Mr. M'Donnell was the bookkeeper at said Morrogh & Kennedy's, and the books showing the state of the said John Sadleir's account with the said bank were at their office ; that the said Morrogh & KenÂnedy were the attorneys for the plaintiff, and for the said John Sadleir also ; that said James Sadleir was the managing man ; that he (witness) knew that the bill was an accommodation bill ; that a bill was discounted in the Tipperary Bank for £21,000, purporting to be signed by the plaintiff, and due 5th May 1855, and that a credit was...