The Daily Dispatch

Liability for Purchasing Stolen Bonds—An Interesting Suit.—An important question to bond-holders was decided before Judge Peckham in the Supreme Court of New York, on Tuesday, in the suit of Verplank and others against the Manufacturers' National Bank and others. The plaintiffs, in November, 1867, lost a $5,000 gold certificate, stolen from one of their messengers. They at once advertised it, and got out handbills announcing its loss. The handbills had on them "Stolen—A gold check," but in other respects described it correctly. On the 5th of January the certificate was presented at the counter of the Manufacturers' Bank by a person who said that he desired to exchange it for smaller certificates to purchase exchange at Brown Brothers'. One of the handbills was then conspicuous in the bank, but the teller, not noticing it, handed out five $1,000 gold certificates. On presenting the certificates to the sub-treasury, Mr. Van Dyck refused payment, and notified the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon began a replevin suit against the bank and the teller, and to prevent, by injunction, the cashing of the check, made the assistant treasurer also a party to the suit. The plaintiffs claimed, on the trial, that the defendants had notice of the fact that it was stolen, and therefore acquired no title. The bank showed that these certificates passed from hand to hand by delivery; that there were some $250,000,000 afloat, and that one bank took in two millions a day, and the defendants themselves $25,000; and that there was a very marked difference between gold checks and gold certificates. The Court directed a verdict for the defendants, and as there had been an injunction, directed the jury to assess interest on the value of the check as damages.—New York Post, Tuesday.