
    GRAFTON, OCTOBER TERM, 1808.
    Nehemiah Jones v. Coos Bank.
    In an action of assumpsit against a bank, on a note issued by the bank, held: defendants bound to pay notes, when presented, in a reasonable time; when a number of bills are presented, defendants should be allowed as much time to count and pay specie for them all as it would take to receive the same amount in specie, and give the same number and amount of bills in exchange; the bank cannot claim the right of paying eacli bill separately; bank may establish reasonable hours for transacting business at the bank; evading payment is a neglect and refusal to pay.
    Appeal from justice of the peace.
    Assumpsit. There were two counts.
    1. Money had and received, Oct. 21, 1807.
    2. On promissory note made by bank, July 4, 1806, $7.
    Plea: the general issue.
    At the trial, May Term, 1808, the plaintiff proved that be presented this note, with others, at the bank, Oct. 21, 1807, amount $1,500, and requested specie; was at the bank from 9 to 12.30. Cashier paid $200 or $300, in the course of the forenoon, in change and crowns; refused to pay any other way than one bill at a time. (It is not necessary to state the evidence. It was clear that the cashier evaded payment; delayed unreasonably; at 12.30, refused to pay any more that day, &c.)
   Smith, C. J.,

summed up.

He said: J ury, to find for plaintiff, must be satisfied that the notes were offered at the bank for payment in specie: 2 Selw. 787 ; that payment was requested. Evidence on this point very clear.

J ury must also be satisfied that defendants have neglected and refused payment. Defendants were bound, in a reasonable time, to count the bills offered, and to count or weigh the specie. Holder has a right to expect promptness, such as banks use in their other transactions. They should be allowed as much time to redeem these bills as it would take to receive $1,500 in specie, and give the same sum in bank notes, in exchange. Bank has no right to insist on paying bill by bill. They may establish reasonable hours for transacting business at the bank, Jury will consider whether there was not, in this case, time enough to have redeemed all the notes offered before bank shut up, Oct. 21; whether there was not evidence of unreasonable delay, a disposition to evade payment. If so, there was sufficient evidence of neglect and refusal.

J ury have no concern with character of either party. Plaintiff ’s rights and defendant’s duties are all that the jury ought to regard. There is no room for doubt as to facts or law.

Jury found for plaintiff. 
      
      
         A person who takes a bank note impliedly agrees to present it for payment at the bank, within the usual banking hours at the place where made payable. . Selw. 787.
     
      
       An opinion was subsequently delivered upon a motion as to costs in the above and other similar cases; but there is no mention of any exceptions to the charge.
     