amongst the monarchs recorded at the Wady Magarah. The lists of Abydos interpose a king called Ra-tatef or Tatefra, between Cheops and Chephren, but his reign was probably short and insignificant, and he may have been the brother of Cheops. According to Herodotus, Chephren reigned 50, according to Manetho 66, and according to Eratosthenes 27 years, the longest time being probably correct. From fragment 30 of the hieratic canon of Turin it is probable that he lived 95 years, and his reign, accord ing to Lepsius, was from 3032-2966 B.C. A splendid diorite statue of Chephren is in the museum of Boulaq, and others, broken and thrown long ago into the well of the temple near the Sphinx, supposed to have been destroyed by popular hatred with the remains of the tombs of his family in the Gizeh cemeteries, are the principal monuments of his reign. It is just possible a bull Apis was buried in his pyramid. (Herodotus, ii. 127, 128; Diodorus, ii. 64; Maspero, Fragment d un commentaire sur le second livre d Herodote, pp. 4-7 ; De Rouge", Recherches, pp. 52, 54, 62-64 ; Marietta, Lettre ct, M. De Rouge, p. 7 ; Lepsius,
Aitsivahl., taf. iii).CHEPSTOW, a market-town and river-port of England, in the county of Monmouth, on the Wye, 2 miles from its junction with the Severn, and 135 miles from London. It occupies the slope of a hill on the western bank of the river, and is environed by scenery of much beauty and grandeur. The town is generally well built, and the streets are broad and clean. The church, originally the conventual chapel of a Benedictine priory of Norman erection, was restored to its former dimensions by the rebuilding of the chancel and transepts in the beginning of the present century. The western entrance and some other parts are richly decorated, and the interior contains many interesting monuments. The castle, founded in the llth century by W. Fitz-Osborn, earl of Hereford, and almost wholly rebuilt in the 13th, is still a magnificent pile. It stands on the summit of a cliff which is washed by the Wye, and occupies about 3 acres of ground. The river is crossed by a fine iron bridge of five arches, erected in 1816, which has a total length of 532 feet and a span in the middle of 112 feet. There is free passage for large vessels as far as the bridge; but barges of from 18 to 30 tons can ascend as far as Hereford. From the narrowness and depth of the channel the tide rises suddenly, and to a great height, frequently above 50, and it is said even^ to 70 feet, forming a dangerous bore. There are no manufactures, but the trade is considerable. The exports are timber, bark, iron, coal, cider, and millstones. Popu lation in 1851, 4295, and in 1871, 3347.
CHEQUE. " A check on a banker," says Mr Justice Byles, " is in legal effect an inland bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable to bearer on demand. A check is consequently subject in general to the rules which regu late the rights and liabilities of parties to bills of exchange." Commercial usage has, however, imposed on cheques certain qualities which do not attach to other bills of exchange.
Before 1858 cheques were not subject to the stamp duties imposed on bills in general, if they complied with the following conditions, viz., to have been drawn on a banker, to have specified truly the place of drawing (which must have been within 75 miles from the banker s place of business), to have been payable to bearer on de mand, not to have been post-dated, and not to have declared payment to be made in bills or notes. Severe penalties were imposed on persons making or receiving unstamped cheques not falling under this exemption. In 1858 a stamp duty of a penny was imposed on all cheques, and the restric tions as to place of drawing, post-dating, &c., abolished. Another restriction making cheques good for sums under twenty shillings is also abolished.
until acceptance, a banker having effects belonging to his customer is bound to pay his customer s cheques within a reasonable time. There is what is called an implied con tract that the banker should do so, and if it is broken the customer may recover damages. The rule as to present ment of bills within a reasonable time (i.e., in general the day after issue) applies to cheques, but a drawer is not relieved by the holder s negligence in presenting unless he has been injured thereby, as for example by the failure of the banker in the interval. The habit of crossing cheques with the name of some banker is believed to have been originally intended as a direction to drawees to pay only to the bankers so named, but it was held at law that such crossing amounted only to a direction to pay to some banker. The words "and Co.," the name of the particular banker being left out, have the same effect. Payment of a crossed cheque otherwise than through a banker was at common law evidence of negligence on the part of the drawee, render ing him responsible to the drawer. The Act 19 and 20 Viet. c. 25 enacted that a cheque bearing across its face an addition of the name of any banker or of the words "and Company " should be payable only through some banker. Payment made otherwise than through a banker hitherto indirectly and practically invalid was thus made directly and as a matter of law invalid. In the construction of this statute it was held by the Court of Common Pleas, in the case of Simmons v. Taylor (27 Law Joui-jial, 45), that the crossing was no part of the cheque and that its fraudulent obliteration was no forgery of the cheque, and that the payment, without negligence, of a cheque with the crossing so obliterated was good as against the drawer. This decision led to the Act 21 and 22 Viet. c. 69, which made the crossing a part of the cheque and its fraudulent obliteration a felony. A holder may cross an uncrossed cheque, or prefix any banker s name to the words " and Co., " but if a particular banker is once named the cheque is henceforth payable through him alone. When a crossing has been obliterated a wrong payment of the cheque in consequence, if without fraud or negligence on the part of the banker, shall not be questioned. In a recent case (Smith v. Union Bank of London) the effect of these enactments was explained by the Court of Appeal in a manner which startled the commercial community. In that case the plaintiff had crossed a cheque received by him from a customer with the name of his own bankers. The check was stolen, and finally passed for full value to C who paid it into his bankers, and they in turn received payment of it from the defendants. The court held that the negotiability of the cheque was not affected by statute, that C had become the lawful holder, and that the plaintiff had no action against the defendants. The consequence of this decision was the Act 39 and 40 Viet. c. 81, which provided that when a cheque bears across its face an addition of the words " and Company," or any abbre viation thereof, between two parallel transverse lines, or of two parallel transverse lines simply, and either with or without the words " not negotiable," that addi tion shall be deemed a crossing, and the cheque shall be deemed to be crossed generally. When a cheque bears across its face an addition of the name of a banker, either with or without the words "not negotiable," that addition shall be deemed a crossing, and the cheque shall be deemed to be crossed specially, and to be crossed to that banker. When a cheque is uncrossed, the lawful holder may cross it generally or specially ; when it is crossed generally, he may cross it specially, and whether crossed generally or specially he may add the words " not negotiable." When a cheque is crossed specially, the
banker to whom it is specially crossed may again cross it