pay test and mode of non-acceptance, the bill in London, the protest for non-acceptance 2dly. Of the promay be made either at Southampton or in London'. giving notice of The form of the protest should always be conformable to the custom of the country where it is made. If a conditional or partial acceptance be offered, the protest should not be general, as otherwise it will release the acceptor from the effect of such acceptance. A copy of the bill should, it is said, be prefixed to all protests, with the indorsements transcribed verbatim, and with an account of the reason given by the party why he does not honour the bill. Protests made in this country, must, in order to their being received in evidence, be written on paper stamped with a proportionate stamp". It has been said, that the making the protest alone is not sufficient, and that a copy of it, or some other memorial, must, within a reasonable time, be sent with a letter of advice to the persons on whom the holder means to call for payment; but it has been recently decided, that it is not necessary that a copy of the protest should accompany the notice of non-acceptance?, 'Mar. 107. 2 Poth. pl. 155, 3 Bayl. 89.-Bentinck v. Dorrien, 6 East. 199. ante, 238, and see Sproat. Matthews, 1 T. R. 182. Poth. pl. 135. 5 See 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. which repeals 44 Geo. 3. c. 98. 48 Geo. 3. c. 149. 6 Bayl. 118.-Poth. pl. 148. and see Orr v. Maginnis, 7 East. 359. 'Bayl. 122.-Robins v. Gibson, 3 Campb. 334.-Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. Rep. 511, 2.-Pothier Traite du Contrat. de Change, part 1. c. 5. s. 150.-Chaters v. Bell, 4 Esp. Rep. 48.-Manning's Index, 66.-Acc. Goostrey v. Mead, Bull. N.P. 271.-Gilb. Ev. 79.Lovelass on Bills, 99.-Selw. N. P. 307. semb. contra. Robins v. Gibson, 3 Campb. 334. In an action against the drawer of a foreign bill of exchange the plaintiff proved, that a protest was regularly drawn up, and also that the drawer had arrived in England before the bill became due, and that a letter was sent to his house, stating, that the bill was dishonoured; but not communicating the protest or a copy of it, the defendant contended, that the protest should have accompanied the notice. Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that under the circumstances of the case, enough had been done, and the plaintiff had a verdict; and upon motion for a new trial, the court being of opinion, it was sufficient that the bill was protested, and that the defendant had notice of the fact of its dishonour, although the protest was not communicated to him, and refused the rule. test and mode of giving notice of nou-acceptance. 2dly. Of the pro- nor is it necessary to send the protested bill', but a notice of the dishonour of the bill should in all cases be immediately given. It has been even held, that the protest for non-acceptance or non-payment of an inland bill may be drawn up at any time before the trial, provided the bill be noted in due time 3. At common law, no inland bill could be protested for non-acceptance; but by the statute 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9. s. 4, which will be observed upon more fully hereafter, a protest was given in case of refusal to accept in writing any inland bill amounting to the sum of five pounds, expressed to be given for value received, and payable at days, weeks, or months after date, in the same manner as in the case of foreign bills of exchange. It has been considered that this protest must be made in order to entitle the holder to demand of the drawer or indorsers, costs, damages, and interest; but in practice the plaintiff recovers interest against a drawer or indorser of an inland bill on proof of due notice without proving a protest. If, however, the bill be of the above description, and 'Mar. 68. 86. 7. 120.-Lovelass, 100. 2 Id. ibid. and supra, note 8.--Hart v. King, 12 Mod. 309.-A nonymous, 1 Vent. 45.-Orr v. Maginnis, 7 East, 359. 3 Chaters v. Bell, 4 Esp. Rep. 48.-Bayl. 122. n. 2.-Selw. Ni. Pri. 307. S. C.-Goostrey v. Mead, Bul. Ni. Pri. 272. observed on in Orr v. Maginnis, 7 East. 361.-Rogers v. Stephens, 2 T. R. 714.—Bayl. 122. Manning's Ind. 66. Chaters v. Bell, 4 Esp. Rep. 48. In an action by an indorsee against the indorser of a foreign bill, it appeared that the bill became due on the 24th April, when payment was demanded, and refused, and the bill was noted for non-payment. Regular notice of the dishonour given to the defendant, but he refused payment because there was no protest. On the 14th May the protest was formally drawn up, and this action was afterwards brought. Lord Kenyon said, "he was of opinion, that if the bill was regularly noted at the time, the protest might be made at a future period." A verdict was found for the plaintiff, but the point was reserved; and on the case coming on to be tried on a venire de novo, before Lord Ellenborough, his lordship expressed his concurrence with the opinion of Lord Kenyon. * See the constructions on this statute, Kyd. 149.-Bayl. 118. 2 Stra. 910. n.'1. ' Harris v. Benson, 2 Stra. 910.-Brough v. Parkins, 2 Lord Raym. 993-1 Salk. 131.-6 Mod. 80. S. C.-Boulager v. Talleyrand, 2 Esp. Rep. 550.-Powell v. Monnier, 1 Atk. 613. Bridgman's Ind. 2 vol. 599. n. 123.-Bayl. 158, 9.-Manning's Ind. 66. test and mode of giving notice of non-acceptance. under the amount of twenty pounds, it may be doubt- 2dly. Of the proful whether the holder would not be entitled to the above accumulative remedy, though no protest were made'. This protest is directed to be made by such persons as are appointed by 9 & 10 William 3. c. 17, to protest inland bills for non-payment', namely, by a notary public, and, in default of him, by any other substantial person of the city, town, or place, in the presence of two or more credible witnesses. Within fourteen days of the making of this protest, the same must be sent, or other notice thereof must be given to, or left in writing at the usual place of abode of the party from whom the bill was received 3. The protest for non-acceptance in the case of an inland bill is by no means necessary, and at most it is only essential to entitle the holder to the accumulative remedy for interest and expences, and the want of it does not affect the holder's right to the principal sum, as it would in the case of a foreign bill; and it is in practice seldom made; an inland bill is in general only noted for non-acceptance, which noting, as already observed, is of no avail'; and if not paid when due, it is then noted, and sometimes, though not very often, protested for non-payment, and a protest for non-acceptance made in the country must be proved by the notary who made it, and it will not as in case of a protest made abroad prove itself7. 'Stat. 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 17. s. 6.—Bayl. 158, 9.-Kyd. 149. 2 Stat. 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9. s. 6. 3 Id. section 5. *Boroughs. Perkins, Holt, 121.-Harris v. Benson, 2 Stra. 910. 6 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9. s. 5.-Kyd. 150. 'Chesmer v. Noyes, 4 Campb. 129, ante, 279. In an action against the acceptor of a foreign bill of exchange it became material to prove the presentment of the bill for payment, and for this purpose the plaintiff's counsel produced a notarial protest under seal. Lord Ellenborough said, the protest may be sufficient to prove a présentment which took place in a foreign country: but I am quite clear that the presentment of a foreign bill in England must be proved in the same manner as if it were an inland bill or promissory note. Notice of nonacceptance, and how given. Notice, however, must be given of the non-acceptance, otherwise, for the reasons before stated', the holder in general discharges the drawer and indorsers from all liability. Any act of the holder, signifying the refusal of the drawee, will be a sufficient notice; though we have seen that in the case of a foreign bill there must also be a protest. It has indeed been said in the course of argument, that it is not enough to state in the notice, that the drawee refuses to honour, but that it must go farther, and express that the holder does not intend to give credit to the drawee '; but it should seem that as the only reason why notice is required, is that the drawer or indorsers may have the earliest opportunity of resorting to the parties liable to them, it is not necessary that they should be informed of their liability, because that is a legal consequence of the default of acceptance of which they must necessarily be apprized by mere notice of non-acceptance *. With respect to the mode of giving the notice personal service is not necessary, nor is it requisite to leave a written notice at the residence of the party; but it is sufficient to send to or convey verbal notice at the counting-house or place of abode of the party without leaving notice in writing. And it is suffi 3 In Tindall v. Brown, 1 T. R. 169. + Shaw v. Croft, cor. Lord Kenyon, Sittings after Trin. Term 1798. MSS. and other cases post, and Selwyn, 4th ed. 320. n. 25. Crosse v. Smith, 1 M. & S. 545.-Goldsmith v. Bland, Bayl. 127. et post, and when personal service is not necessary, see 4 T. R. 465.-1 Bos. & Pul. 394. Gouldsmith and others v. Bland and others, at Guildhall, cor. Lord Eldon, 1st March, 1800. The plaintiffs sued the defendants as indorsers of two foreign bills, and to prove notice the plaintiffs shewed that they sent a clerk to the defendant's counting-house near the Exchange, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, nobody was in the counting-house, the clerk saw a servant girl at the house, who said that nobody was in the way, and he returned having left no message with her. Lord Eldon told the jury, that if they thought the defendants ought to have had somebody in the counting-house at the time, he was of opinion that the plaintiffs had done all that was necessary by sending their clerk; that the notice was in law sufficient, test and mode of non-acceptance. cient, both in the case of a foreign and an inland bill, 2dly. Of the preto send notice by the post, even though the letter giving notice of should miscarry; for it would be very unreasonable to make it incumbent on the holder to send a person with the notice, where perhaps the distance may be very great; and indeed there is considerable risk in send if the time was regular, whether the defendants were solvent at the time or not. The jury thought that the defendants ought to have had somebody in the counting-house at the time, and that the plaintiffs had done all that was necessary. Verdict for the plaintiffs for £1633. Crosse and others, assignees, &c. against Smith and others, 1 M. & S. 545. Notice to the drawers of non-payment of a bill of exchange, by sending to their counting-house, during the hours of business, on two successive days, knocking there, and making noise sufficient to be heard by persons within, and waiting there several minutes, the inner door of the counting-house being locked is sufficient, without leaving a notice in writing or sending by the post, though some of the drawers live at a small distance from the place. Per Lord Ellenborough. The counting-house is a place where all appointments respecting the business and all notices should be addressed, and it is the duty of the merchant to take care that a proper person be in attendance. It has however been argued, that notice in writing left at the counting-house, or put into the post was necessary, but the law does not require it, and with whom it was to be left? Putting a letter into the post is only one mode of giving notice, but where both parties are residing in the same town, sending a clerk is a more regular and less exceptionable mode. Saunderson v. Judge, 2 Hen. Bla. 509.-Kufh. Weston, 3 Esp. Rep. 54. Haynes v. Birks, 3 Bos. & Pul. 602.-Parker v. Gordon, 7 East. 385, 6.-Pearson v. Cranlan, 2 Smith's Rep. 404.-Langdon v. Mills, 5 Esp. 157.-Bayl. 128. 226. acc.-Dale v. Lubbock, 1 Barnard, B. R. 199.-Poth. Traite du Contrat de Change, part 1. chap. 5. sect. 2. art. 1, 3, 4. semb. contra. Kufh v. Weston, 3 Esp. 54. Notice of the non-acceptance or nonpayment of a bill of exchange is sufficiently given by proving that a letter was regularly put into the post informing the party of the fact. Assumpsit on a foreign bill of exchange drawn by Garde, at Exeter, on Messrs. Guetano and Co. at Genoa: the defendants indorsed the bill to the plaintiffs. The bill was presented for acceptance at Genoa, and the acceptance refused, the defence was, that it had not been presented in a reasonable time, nor the protest for non-acceptance sent to this country as soon as it ought to have been, and that therefore the defendants had not had due notice of its being dishonored. In answer to this, it was proved, that the bill had been put into the post-office at London, the third day after it was received from the defendants, which was the first Italian post-day after it had been so received. It was further proved, that from the disturbed state of Italy, for some time before the regular post had been interrupted, and the bill had not arrived at Genoa till a month after it became due, that it was immediately presented for acceptance, which being refused, it was protested, and the protest sent off immediately by the post to England. Lord Kenyon said, that the defendants grounded their defence on the supposed laches of the plaintiff, but he was of opinion that if the plaintiffs had sent the bill by the ordinary course of the post they had done all they were called upon |