Is there a duty of the acceptor of a bill of exchange to take precautions against fraudulent alterations in a bill after acceptance?

Scholfield v. Earl of Londesborough, [1896] A.C. 514, however, decides that the acceptor of a bill of exchange is not under a duty to take precautions against fraudulent alterations in a bill after acceptance, and equally I think his omission to do so cannot, in itself, be an answer to the acceptor’s demand for restitution where he has paid the bill in ignorance of the forgery. Such a demand is one for the repayment of money paid under a mistake of fact, and without consideration, and, while it may be conceded that it is in principle a demand of an equitable nature, and may, therefore, be met and resisted on equitable grounds, these must be grounds arising in or out of or subsequent to the transaction of payment itself and not out of facts which did not conduce or lead to the payment. Whether in point of law, looking at the form of the certification, the plaintiffs are to be regarded as acceptors of the cheque or not their legal, position as regards their right to maintain the action is the same as if they were, because they paid the cheque on the faith of the supposed certification.