WHEN CHECK IS DEEMED OVERDUE AND CHARGES HOLDER WITH THE EQUITIES. There is some uncertainty among the authorities as to when a check not known to have been dishonored is over due so as to charge the holder with equities of which he had no notice when taking the note; thus Pro fessor Tiedeman states that a check would be con sidered stale or overdue "whenever the delay in presentment has been so long that, in the light of the circumstances of the particular case, it is suffi cient to arouse the suspicions of a reasonably pru dent man." (Com. Pap., Sec. 446.) Thus under different circumstances a check has been held to be overdue from a delay in presentment of two years (Skillman v. Titus, 32 N. J. L., 96); one year, (Bank v. Woodward, 18 Pa. St., 357); fourteen months (Cowing v. Altman, 71 N. Y., 436); five days (Down v. Halting, 4 B. & C., 330). And a delay in presentment for the following periods have been held not to make the check overdue as regards the holder: one month (Lester v. Given, 8 Busk, 357); ten days (Ames v. Merriam, 98 Mass., 294).