forty centuries of ink- 第43部分

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；　the　check　was　sent　through

the　clearing…house；　and　was　paid　by　the　Crocker…

Woolworth　Bank。　The　next　day；　the　check　having

been　cleared；　Dean　called　and　drew　out　20；000；

taking　the　cash　in　four　bags　of　gold；　the　teller　not

having　paper　money　convenient。　He　had　a　vehicle

at　the　door；　with　his　office　boy　inside　as　driver；　and

away　he　went。　At　the　end　of　the　month；　when

the　Crocker…Woolworth　Bank　made　returns　to　the

Woodland　Bank；　it　included　the　draft　for　22；000。

Here　the　fraud　was　discovered；　and　here　the　lesson

to　bankers　of　advising　drafts　received　a　new

illustration。　The　Bank　of　Woodland　had　drawn　no

such　draft；　and　the　only　one　it　had　drawn　which

was　not　accounted　for　was　one　for　twelve　dollars；

issued　in　favor　of　A。　H。　Holmes　to　an　innocent…

looking　man；　who；　on　December　9；　called　to　ask

how　he　could　send　twelve　dollars　to　a　distant

friend；　and　whether　it　was　better　to　send　a　money

order　or　an　express　order。　When　he　was　told　he

could　send　it　by　bank　draft；　he　seemed　to　have

learned　something　new；　supposed　that　he　could

not　get　a　bank　draft；　and　he　took　it；　paying　the　fee。

Here　came　back　that　innocent　twelve…dollar　draft；

raised　to　22；000；　and　on　its　way　had　cost　somebody

20；000　in　gold。



〃The　almost　absolute　perfection　with　which　the

draft　had　been　forged　had　nearly　defied　the　detection

of　even　the　microscope。　In　the　body　of　the

original　12　draft　had　been　the　words；　'Twelve

。。。。。。。。　Dollars。'　The　forger；　by　the　use　of　some

chemical　preparation；　had　erased　the　final　letters

'lve'　from　the　word　'twelve；'　and　had　substituted

the　letters　'nty…two；'　so　that　in　place　of　the

'twelve；'　is　it　appeared　in　the　genuine　draft；

there　was　the　word　'twenty…two'　in　the　forged

paper。



〃In　the　space　between　the　word　'twenty…two'

and　the　word　'dollars'　the　forger　inserted　the

word　'thousand；'　so　that　in　place　of　the　draft

reading　'twelve　dollars；'　as　at　first；　it　read

'twenty…two　thousand　dollars；'　as　changed。



〃In　the　original　12　draft；　the　figures　'1'　and

'2'　and　the　character　''　had　been　punched　so

that　the　combination　read　'12。'　The　forger　had

filled　in　these　perforations　with　paper　in　such　away

that　the　part　filled　in　looked　exactly　like　the　field

of　the　paper。　After　having　filled　in　the　perforations；

he　had　perforated　the　paper　with　the　combination；

'22；000。'



〃The　dates；　too；　had　been　erased　by　the　chemical

process；　and　in　their　stead　were　dates　which

would　make　it　appear　that　the　paper　bad　been　presented

for　payment　within　a　reasonable　length　of

time　after　it　had　been　issued。　The　dates　in　the

original　draft；　if　left　on　the　forged　draft；　would

have　been　liable　to　arouse　suspicion　at　the　bank；

for　they　would　have　shown　that　the　holder　had　departed

from　custom　in　carrying；　such　a　valuable　paper

more　than　a　few　days。



〃That　was　the　extent　of　the　forgeries　which

had　been　made　in　the　paper；　the　manner　in

which　they　had　been