236 SECRETARIAL PRACTICE Specially prescribed forms. Summary. ignorance of any defect in the instrument, it was held that the professed attorney, i.e. the stockbroker, was liable to in- demnify the bank [Oliver v. Bank of England (1902), 18 T.L.R. 341; Starkey v. Bank of England (1903), A.C. 114; Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay (1905), A.C. 392, where Lord Davey said: ‘I dissent from the proposition that a person who brings a transfer to the registering authority and requests him to register it makes no representation that it is a genuine docu- ment ’]. The Forged Transfers Act 1891 provides that local authorities and companies (including companies incorporated by statute or by royal charter) may ‘impose such reasonable restrictions on the transfer of their shares, stock, or securities, or with respect to powers of attorney for the transfer thereof, as they may consider requisite for guarding against losses by forgery,’ and may make compensation out of their funds for any loss arising from a forged transfer or a transfer under a forged power of attorney. In the case of any stock to which the Colonial Stock Acts apply, the Government of the Colony issuing the stock may apply the Act to the stock so issued. Finally, it must be remembered that companies and other bodies or authorities (e.g. the Bank of England and the Pay Office) prescribe special forms for use in certain cases. Their right to do so cannot be questioned where it is made one of the terms on which the property to be dealt with is created or retained under their control, whether by virtue of a statute,! rules of the Supreme Court,? or articles of asso- ciation; and as such forms are presumably prescribed as a reasonable measure of protection against forgery, it is open to doubt whether in any event the right to insist on their use could successfully be challenged [see Prosser v. Bank of England (1872), L.R. 13 Eq. 611]. The following, therefore, are some practical questions for consideration when a company is asked to act upon a power of attorney: — (1) Is there any reason to doubt the genuineness of the instrument? (2) Was the grant of the power within the capacity of the donor? (3) Is there satisfactory evidence of the identity and capacity of the donee? 1 E.g., s. 22 of the National Debt Act, 1870, and s. 17 of the Finance Act, 1911. 2 E.g., Supreme Court Funds Rules. Rule 48.