B-140836, OCT. 3, 1960
Highlights
THERE IS CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING IN HER ACCOUNTS A SHORTAGE OF $100 WHICH AROSE BECAUSE OF HER ACCEPTANCE OF A COUNTERFEIT NOTE IN THAT AMOUNT. ACCEPTED IT AS BEING GENUINE. (3) THE BOGOTA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NOTE WAS COUNTERFEIT AND ACCEPTED IT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD BE REDEEMED BY THE EMBASSY IF IT FAILED TO PASS CLEARANCE. OUR OFFICE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT MISS JOHNSON WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN THE MATTER IN VIEW OF THE DOUBT AS TO THE NOTE'S AUTHENTICITY BY ALL CONCERNED AND THEREFORE DENIED THE REQUESTED RELIEF. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION WROTE THAT: "IT NOW APPEARS THAT THE DEPARTMENT ERRED IN CONVEYING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE CASHIER QUESTIONED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE NOTE AND THAT MISS JOHNSON CALLED THE ATTENTION OF THE BOGOTA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK TO THE NOTE AT THE TIME IT WAS SOLD TO THE BANK.'.
B-140836, OCT. 3, 1960
TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF STATE:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ADMINISTRATION HAS, BY HIS LETTER OF AUGUST 29, 1960, AGAIN REQUESTED OUR OFFICE TO GRANT RELIEF UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 1, 1947, 61 STAT. 720, AS AMENDED, AUGUST 9, 1955, 69 STAT. 626, 31 U.S.C. 82A-1, TO MISS VIOLA JOHNSON, UNITED STATES DISBURSING OFFICER AT BOGOTA, COLUMBIA. THERE IS CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING IN HER ACCOUNTS A SHORTAGE OF $100 WHICH AROSE BECAUSE OF HER ACCEPTANCE OF A COUNTERFEIT NOTE IN THAT AMOUNT.
THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE ON TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS AND AFTER EACH CONSIDERATION, BASED ON FACTS AS REPORTED HERE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WE DENIED RELIEF.
SPECIFICALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED THAT:
(1) THE ACCEPTING CASHIER QUESTIONED THE NOTE AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE EXAMINED BY MISS JOHNSON.
(2) MISS JOHNSON EXAMINED THE NOTE AND ALTHOUGH IT APPEARED TO BE WATER SOAKED, ACCEPTED IT AS BEING GENUINE.
(3) THE BOGOTA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NOTE WAS COUNTERFEIT AND ACCEPTED IT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD BE REDEEMED BY THE EMBASSY IF IT FAILED TO PASS CLEARANCE.
AFTER REVIEWING THESE FACTS, OUR OFFICE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT MISS JOHNSON WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN THE MATTER IN VIEW OF THE DOUBT AS TO THE NOTE'S AUTHENTICITY BY ALL CONCERNED AND THEREFORE DENIED THE REQUESTED RELIEF.
IN HIS LETTER OF AUGUST 29, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION WROTE THAT: "IT NOW APPEARS THAT THE DEPARTMENT ERRED IN CONVEYING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE CASHIER QUESTIONED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE NOTE AND THAT MISS JOHNSON CALLED THE ATTENTION OF THE BOGOTA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK TO THE NOTE AT THE TIME IT WAS SOLD TO THE BANK.' THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR THE CHANGE IN VIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AS TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS A STATEMENT BY MISS JOHNSON THAT SHE DID NOT CALL THE BANK'S ATTENTION TO THE NOTE, BUT THAT THE BANK'S CASHIER NOTICED IT BECAUSE IT LOOKED DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER NOTES AND BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF HIS SUPERIOR.
MISS JOHNSON'S SELF-SERVING STATEMENT MADE OVER TWO YEARS AFTER THE NOTE WAS ACCEPTED BY HER IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE WAS FREE OF FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE IN THE MATTER. IN VIEW OF ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, WE CONCUR IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT MISS JOHNSON WAS WITHOUT FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE IN THE MATTER AND THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS HEREBY GRANTED.