6. Power under order of court to inspect boohs and, take copies.-On the application of any party to any legal proceedings who has received such notice, a judge of one of the superior courts may order that such party be at liberty to inspect and to take copies of any entry or entries in the ledger, day books, cash books, or other account books of any such bank relating to the matters in question in such legal proceedings, and such orders may be made by such judge at his discretion either with or without summoning before him such bank or the other party or parties to such legal proceedings, and shall be intimated to such bank at least three days before such copies are required.

7. Judge may order that copies are not admissible.-On the application of any party to any legal proceedings who has received notice, a judge of one of the superior courts may order that such entries and copies mentioned in the said notice shall not be admissible as evidence of the matters, transactions, and accounts recorded in such ledgers, day books, cash books, and other account books.

8. Bank not compellable to produce boohs except in certain cases. - No bank shall be compellable to produce the ledgers, day books, cash books, or other account books of such bank in any legal proceedings, unless a judge of one of the superior courts specially orders that such ledgers, day books, cash books, or other account books should be produced at such legal proceedings.

9. Proof as to status of bank.-The fact of any such bank having duly made their return to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may be proved in any legal proceedings by production of a copy of such return, verified as having been duly made by the affidavit in writing of one of the partners, or of the manager, or of one of the officers of such bank, or by the production of a copy of a newspaper purporting to contain a copy of such return, published in such newspaper by the said Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

It may not be out of place here to give a few practical hints, the observance of which will facilitate the transaction of business, and tend to promote a good understanding between banker and customer.

Having once opened a banking account it is an undesirable step for a commercial house to change their bankers, unless for very strong reasons, as it is frequently looked upon as a sign of weakness. It may sometimes be a convenience to have accounts with two or more bankers, but as a rule half confidence is not greatly esteemed, especially if the customer be a large discounter. Although cheques and bills of exchange, arrived at maturity, are passed to a customer's credit as soon as paid in, it is expected that they will not be drawn against until sufficient time shall have elapsed to enable the banker to collect the money. It is usual to say by a note in the pass book how long this operation will take, which generally will not exceed a few hours unless the post or the country clearing be the medium of collection, when three or four days should be allowed. The neglect of this precaution is often the source of much annoyance, causing the dishonour of cheques drawn against these "uncleared effects" and consequent loss of credit. The law says that a banker is bound to know his customer's handwriting, and there can be no doubt that it is just and right that it should be so; but, on the other hand, it is probable that more care would be exercised if it were left to a jury to say, in case of the forgery of the name of an habitually careless writer, whether the ordinary penmanship had not conduced to the success of the fraud. It is quite a mistake to suppose that illegible writing is the most difficult to forge; experience proves the contrary. The more distinct the writing the more difficult it is to imitate.

It is very desirable that the printed forms, supplied by bankers for the purpose, should be filled up and given in with all sums paid to a customer's credit; much time is thereby saved, and many mistakes avoided. Cheques and bills should also be carefully examined and put in order as to stamps, indorsements, etc.

We would strongly urge that instructions sent to a banker through the medium of a clerk or servant should be always in writing, never verbal.

It is not usual for bankers to give receipts for money paid to a customer's credit over the counter. There are, however, some few exceptions to the rule.

Cheques remitted by post should always be crossed, if sent to the payee, with the name of his banker when known, otherwise with the words "and company" between transverse lines, or the lines alone.

When cheques are sent by the payee or holder to a bank for his credit, they should be crossed with the banker's name, not indorsed to his order, which only entails labour, without affording any additional security. "The effect of crossing cheques will be found fully explained in a subsequent chapter. A banker having received notice of the death of a customer must not part with property of any kind belonging to him, notwithstanding any orders of the deceased; everything will henceforth be subject to the directions of the executors or administrators, as the case may be, after production of the probate or letters of administration.

Nor must a banker honour cheques or give up securities deposited by a customer, of whose committal of an act of bankruptcy he has had notice; the assignees- alone have power, to give receipts which will release the banker. This also applies to money paid to the bankrupt's credit after notice given.

On the bankruptcy of a banker securities or plate, deposited for safe custody, must be returned to the customer, also bills held for collection and not matured; but the balance of account and discounted bills belong to the estate. On opening a banking account the customer is supplied with a pass book, in which are entered by the banker from time to time all sums paid in and drawn out, and having received and examined it without raising any objection, he is taken to have acquiesced in its correctness.

The banker is likewise bound by the entries in the pass book, and unless he can clearly show them to be errors, they are in case of dispute, prima facie evidence against him.

A banker is bound not to disclose the state of his customer's account, though if a cheque be presented for payment, when he has no funds of the drawer's in hand, he will be justified in marking it to that effect. But supposing he has some money, though not enough to meet the cheque, he must give no further information than " not sufficient."

The curious case of Foster v. The Bank of London shows this very clearly. There a person on being refused payment of an overdue acceptance of the plaintiff for £542, managed to ascertain from the cashier that there was a deficiency of £104. This sum he paid to the credit of the account, and then by representing the bill obtained the whole of the balance. The plaintiff obtained a verdict against the bank for £438.

But on a trial, either civil or criminal, a banker may be asked as to the state of an account on a particular day, and will be obliged to answer.

It is the custom as a matter of courtesy between bankers to report confidentially as to the standing and financial responsibility of their customers in general terms; not of course in any way disclosing the state of an account. The case of Swift v. Jewesbury and Goddard shows that it is very necessary to supply information of this kind with due care. Mr. Swift, a customer of the Sheffield and Hallamshire Bank having received an order for rails to the amount of about £3000 from Sir William Russell, requested them to ascertain from the Gloucestershire Banking Company, at Cheltenham, whether he might safely undertake the commission. A letter was written by the sub-manager of the Sheffield Bank to Mr. Goddard, manager, at Cheltenham, asking if Sir William Russell might be considered responsible for £50,000. To this the reply was that "Sir William Russell, M.P., for Norwich, was Lord of the Manor of Charlton Kings, with a rent roll I am told of £7000 per annum, the receipt of which is in his own hands, and has large expectancies, and I do not believe he would incur the liability you name unless he was certain to meet the engagement. - I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully, T. B. Goddard, manager."

This answer being communicated to Swift he executed the order, and failing to get his money brought an action against the Gloucestershire Banking Company, and Mr. Goddard for the amount.

It appeared that at the time the letter was written Sir William Russell was largely indebted to the Gloucestershire Banking Company, and that it was within the knowledge of Mr. Goddard that there were other considerable liabilities. The bank disclaimed responsibility on the ground that the letter was not written by Goddard in his capacity of agent, and this view, though not adopted in the Court of Queen's Bench, where judgment was given against the bank and Goddard, was affirmed on appeal to the Exchequer Chamber, who reversed the decision against the bank, whilst upholding it as regards Goddard.