[wahern]

I'm not sure if the rules were the same as far back as then, but the modern rule (or rules, plural, as they're a consequence of several rules) that a bank (either the drawee bank or an intermediate paying/depository bank, depending on the circumstances) is liable for a fraudulently cashed check has existed for centuries, IIRC. And just like today, it doesn't much matter if an impersonator forged a payee's or endorsee's signature, amount, etc; a bank is still on the hook. (And IIRC a bank is liable only upon a prima facie showing of forgery, as opposed to whatever stronger burden of proof would normally adhere.) Of course, the defrauding party is liable to which ever bank was on the hook, but the rules operate to rather clearly make a bank strictly liable in the first instance so there's minimal confusion in the banking system regarding settlements or settlement disputes, and the drawer (person who wrote the check) is the most protected of all.

This incentivizes banks to "know your customer" (long before modern regulatory regimes), as well as for banks to only deal with other reputable banks. In legal jurisdictions that do a lot of international commercial transactions, rules such as these are typically held paramount unless specifically and clearly overridden by local law. Relatedly, jurisdictions that don't abide the so-called Lex mercatoria tend not to become centers of international commerce.

If the drawer weren't strongly protected, the utility of checks would severely diminished.