The Gazette 1958-61

to the bank and is sufficient (Reynolds v. Chettle (1811) 2 Camp. 595 and Harris v. Packer (1833) 3 Tyr. 370). He held, therefore, that the handing over of the cheque to the representative of the National Bank in the clearing office was presentment. Its purpose was a demand for payment by the bank, and the cheque thereupon came into the possession of the bank, and it became their duty to pay or dis honour. In the absence of special instructions, it would not have been appropriate for the Plaintiff Bank to present the cheque for payment in any other manner. He goes on : " It is to be noted that while the Act provides by Section 45 that a bill must be presented for payment within a reasonable time and that if not so presented the indorser shall be discharged; and provides by Section 48 (12) that notice of dishonour must be given within a reasonable time after dis honour and that if not so given the indorser is discharged ; no specific provision is made covering the interval between presentment and dishonour and the effect of delay by the paying bank in dealing with a bill duly presented either by paying or dishonour ing. Section 47 (i) provides only that a bill is dishonoured by non-payment when it is duly presented for payment and payment is refused or cannot be obtained or when presentment is excused and the bill is overdue and unpaid. It is of course the duty of the paying bank to whom a bill has been presented to deal with it forthwith understanding by that word not on the spot but within such time as is reasonable. In determining what is a reasonable time, we have no doubt that, though not so provided specifically by the Act, regard should be had to the nature of the bill, the usage of trade with regard to similar bills and the facts of the particular case. Delay in dealing with a bill duly presented is the responsibility of the paying bank, though I would have no doubt that a collecting bank, or a bank presenting as holder, might incur a responsibility if it failed to use due diligence in requiring the paying bank to deal with a bill presented and failed to treat a bill as dishonoured if there was undue delay, on the ground that payment could not be obtained. On the view taken the delay, if this is an appropriate word, in the present case occurred in this interval between presentment and dishonour. On the case as presented, it does not arise for consideration whether this delay was unreasonable on the part of the National Bank or on the part of the plaintiff bank in not requiring the National Bank to deal with the cheque more speedily or treating it as dishonoured if it was not so dealt with. In our opinion, therefore, the defence that the cheque was not presented within a reasonable time, fails." (The Royal Bank of Ireland Limited v. Isobel P. O'Rorke.)

In a recent case the defendant, who was not a customer of the plaintiffs' bank, endorsed and cashed on the zoth May 1959, in their Dun Laoghaire Branch, a cheque drawn in her favour on the National Bank, College Green, Dublin. The cheque was, in accordance with the normal practice, sent by the plaintiffs to their clearing department in their head office. On the zist May 1959 it was handed over in the Central Clearing Office to an official of the National Bank. On the 22nd May 1959, the National Bank returned the cheque by post to the Dun Laoghaire Branch of the plaintiffs marked ' effects not cleared 22.5.59'. The plaintiffs received the cheque on the morning of the 23rd May 1959, which was a Saturday, and, on the zjth May 1959, notified the defendant by telephone that the cheque had been dishonoured. The defendant did not repay to the plaintiffs the amount of the cheque and they accord ingly sued her. On the hearing in the High Court, before Murnaghan J., the defendant contended that she was not liable as endorser as she did not receive notice of dishonour within a reasonable time in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Section 45 of that Act provides that a Bill must be presented within a reasonable time having regard to the nature of the bill, the usage of trade with regard to similar bills and the facts of the particular case and that if not so presented an endorser shall be discharged. Section 49 of the Act provides that notice of dishonour must be given within a reasonable time after a bill is dishonoured, and that to comply with the section, notice must be given or sent off in time to reach the person receiving it on the day after the dishonour of the Bill. Mr. Justice Murnaghan decided that, as section 45 of the Bills of Exchange Act requires that present ment must be made to some person authorised to pay or refuse payment, it was not presented when received at the Central Clearing Office by an officer of the National Bank, as such officer had no authority to pay or refuse payment. The cheque could only be considered for payment under the deferred posting system at present in operation in the banks in the Republic after the close of business on the 22nd May 1959, that is, 48 hours after the time when the plaintiffs became holders of the cheque. He held, therefore, that the cheque could not be considered as presented for payment until then, and that such presentation was not within a reasonable time. He therefore held for the defendant. From this decision the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Judgment of that Court was delivered by Lavery J. He held that it is established that, if a bill payable at a bank is presented to a clerk or agent of a bank at the clearing house, that is presentment 8