In the early days of money-order transactions, it was the lenient custom of the office, in cases where an order had been paid to a forged signature, still to pay it to the right party. This dangerous indulgence did not fail to become known to the knavish class, who made profitable use of the opportunity. Thus two persons, perhaps lodging at the same house, would purposely arrange that an order obtained in favour of one should fall into the hands of the other; and when the latter, by forging the signature of the former, had obtained payment, the former, applying in his own name, and showing that the signature given was not his, was able to obtain payment a second time. To put a stop to this systematic fraud, which had become a thing of daily practice, it became necessary so to modify the existing law as to provide that when an order had once been paid, even though to the wrong person, no _legal claim_ should remain against the Post Office. In accordance with the old practice, the order was still paid where it appeared that the blame rested with the Post Office itself. This new rule, though regarded by many as a great stretch of power, not only put an immediate stop to the fraud against which it was directed, but produced so little complaint from any quarter as to make it clear that the previous indulgence had been almost as superfluous as it was dangerous. Nevertheless the exceptional authority of the Postmaster-General was soon afterwards put in requisition in the following case:--