Stolen Notes.—It occasionally happens that a person finds himself in possession of a bank note which has been lost or stolen, and which, on that account, for the time being the bank refuses to pay. What is his position ? The answer is very much the same as if the note had been a lost or stolen chattel. If he had found it himself he would have a right to it against all the world except the true owner, but if having so found it and made such efforts to find the owner as any honest man should and would make, he will certainly not object to the bank refusing payment when at the same time it can satisfy him that the owner has been found. There, in fact, is the end of the matter. But if the holder of the note has himself received it from another, who or whose predecessors in title had stolen it, the question is slightly more involved ; and to determine it in the holder's favour it will be necessary for him to have obtained the note in such a manner as to satisfy both of the following two conditions. The first is that he took the note bond fide; the second, that he gave value for it. Total no_i-compliance with either of these conditions will render the note valueless in his hands. But whether a varying degree of non compliance of either or both will have the same effect will depend upon the circumstances of the case. The second condition is often a test of the first ; the payment of a grossly inadequate sum in exchange for a note is pregnant evidence of a guilty knowledge. But the mere deduction of discount at or dinary market rates, when cashing a Bank of Ent.eland note abroad, would hardly be such evidence. Having once, however, fully and thoroughly estab lished the fact that adequate value had been given for the note, it will not be enough, in order to successfully resist payment to the holder, to show that there was carelessness, negligence, or foolishness in not suspecting that there was anything wrong about the note. On the contrary. it would be necessary to
show•that the person who gave value for the bill had noticed that there was something wrong about it when he took it, even though he did not know what the particular wrong might be. If a person, knowing that a note was in the hands of a man who would not be likely to have a right to it, should happen to think that, perhaps, the man had stolen it, when, if he had known the real truth, he would have found, not that the man had stolen it, but that he had obtained it by false pretences, that would not make any difference if he knew there was something wrong about the note and took it. takes it in that way he takes it at his peril.
If he were honestly blundering and careless, having for example forgotten the particulars of an advertisement relating to the note, and so cashed it when he ought not to have done so, still he would be entitled to payment. But if the facts and circumstances are such that the jury, or whoever has to try the question, came to the conclusion that he was not honestly blundering and careless, but that he must have bad a suspicion that there was something wrong, and that he refrained from asking questions, not because he was an honest blunderer or a stupid man, but because he thought in his own secret mind—I suspect there is something wrong, and if I ask questions and make further inquiry it will no longer be my suspecting it, but my knowing it, and then I shall not be able to recover—that would be dishonesty, and the holder would not be bond fide, and would not be entitled to payment. See BILLS OF EXCHANGE; CHEQUE.