24 L. J., Q. B. 102. A notice by the holder's solicitor, not stating on whose behalf the notice is given, is sufficient. Woodthorpe v. Lawes, 2 M. & W. 109.

To whom notice should be given.-Statute.] By sect. 49, " (8.) Where notice of dishonour is required to be given to any person, it may be given either to the party himself, or to his agent in that behalf.”

"(9.) Where the drawer or indorser is dead, and the party giving notice knows it, the notice must be given to a personal representative if such there be, and with the exercise of reasonable diligence he can be found."

"(10.) Where the drawer or indorser is bankrupt, notice may be given either to the party himself or to the trustee."

"(11.) Where there are two or more drawers or indorsers who are not partners, notice must be given to each of them, unless one of them has authority to receive such notice for the others."

By sub-sects. (3, 4), ante, p. 347, notice given by the holder or indorser enures for the benefit of other persons having remedies on the bill.

To whom notice should be given.] Where the drawers are in partnership, a notice to one is notice to all; and therefore where a bill is drawn by a firm upon one of that firm, and dishonoured, notice of the dishonour need not be given to the firm. Porthouse v. Parker, 1 Camp. 82. But, it seems that notice to a member of a public company or quasi-corporation is not notice to the company. Steward v. Dunn, 12 M. & W. 664, per Parke, B.; Powles v. Page, 3 C. B. 16. The indorser of a dishonoured bill was abroad, but had a house in England, and the bill was shown to his wife there, and payment demanded, and she was also informed of the non-payment: held sufficient. Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. 511; Housego v. Cowne, 2 M. & W. 348. Where a substituted bill has been given and dishonoured, and the plaintiff sues on the first bill, he need not prove notice of the dishonour of the substituted bill, the defendant being no party to it. Bishop v. Rowe, 3 M. & S. 362. Presentation at the banking-house where a bill is made payable "in need" by the indorsee is not notice of dishonour to the indorsers. Ex pte. Prange, L. R., 1 Eq. 1.

Time within which notice must be given.-Statute.] By sect. 49, "(12.) The notice may be given as soon as the bill is dishonoured, and must be given within a reasonable time thereafter.

In the absence of special circumstances notice is not deemed to have been given within a reasonable time unless

(a.) where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in the same place, the notice is given or sent off in time to reach the latter on the day after the dishonour of the bill. (b.) where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in different places, the notice is sent off on the day after the dishonour of the bill, if there be a post at a convenient hour on that day, and if there be no such post on that day, then by the next post thereafter." "(13.) Where a bill when dishonoured is in the hands of an agent, he may either himself give notice to the parties liable on the bill, or he may give notice to his principal. If he give notice to his principal, he must do so within the same time as if he were the holder, and the principal upon receipt of such notice has himself the same time for giving notice as if the agent had been an independent holder."

"(14.) Where a party to a bill receives due notice of dishonour, he has, after the receipt of such notice, the same period of time for giving notice to antecedent parties that the holder has after the dishonour."

66

Sect. 50. (1.) Delay in giving notice of dishonour is excused where the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the party giving

Payee or Indorsee against Drawer.

349

notice, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate, the notice must be given with reasonable diligence."

By sect. 49 (15), post, p. 350, delay caused by miscarriage in the post office is excused.

By sect. 92, "Where, by this Act, the time limited for doing any act or thing is less than three days, in reckoning time, non-business days are excluded.

"Non-business days for the purposes of this Act mean

(a.) Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day :

(b.) A bank holiday under the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, or Acts amending it :

(c.) A day appointed by Royal proclamation as a public fast or thanksgiving day.

Any other day is a business day."

By sect. 72 (3), ante, p. 323, the necessity for and sufficiency of a notice of dishonour are determined by the law of the place where the bill is dishonoured.

As to excuse for delay under sect. 50 (1), ante, p. 348, on the ground that the holder does not know the address of the drawer or indorser, vide post, p. 355.

Time within which notice must be given.] The principle when there are several indorsements is that each indorser has his own day to give notice, but, the holder has not as many days to give notice to the drawer, or prior indorser, as there are intermediate indorsers. He can sue the drawer upon a notice given by the last indorser only if each and every prior indorser has in due time given notice of dishonour to the next preceding indorser. A single default breaks the chain of notices and disqualifies the holder from suing any indorser prior to the defective link, unless a direct and immediate notice has been given by the plaintiff to the person sued. Rowe v. Tipper, 13 C.B. 249; 22 L. J., C. P. Î35; Turner v. Leech, 4 B. & A. 451; Marsh v. Maxwell, 2 Camp. 210, n. Where the holder employs a solicitor to ascertain the residence of a prior indorser, the latter has after he has received it a day before giving notice of dishonour. Firth v. Thrush, 8 B. & C. 387. When a bill has passed through several branch banks of the same establishment, each is to be considered as a separate party, so as to be entitled to the usual time for giving notice of dishonour, though the bill may have passed by delivery without indorsement; Clode v. Bayley, 12 M. & W. 51. So, where, in the ordinary course of business, it has passed through several independent banks. Prideaux v. Criddle, L. R., 4 Q. B. 455. It may be observed that the decision of Kindersley, V.-C., in Ex pte. Prange, L. R., 1 Eq. 1, is hardly consistent with the above cases.

If the notice of dishonour, sent to the drawer of a bill, arrives too late through misdirection, it is for the jury to say whether the holder used "due diligence" to find the drawer's address; Siggers v. Brown, 1 M & Rob. 520; and, if the delay arose from the bill having been sent to a wrong person through a mistake caused by the indistinctness of the drawer's writing on the bill, he is not discharged; Hewitt v. Thomson, Id. 543.

Notice, proof of, by admission.] Admission of liability is evidence of notice; as, by a promise to pay; for this admits everything done to entitle the plaintiff to sue; Lundie v. Robertson, 7 East, 231; Croxon v. Worthen, 5 M. & W. 5; even though it is proved or admitted that notice was not in fact given; Killby v. Rochussen, 18 C. B., N. S. 357. So, a declaration by the defendant made to a party to, but not the holder of the bill, of his intention to pay the bill," and not to avail himself of the informality of

notice," is evidence of due notice. Brownell v. Bonney, 1 Q. B. 39. So, where defendant knew that the bill was unpaid, and only objected to pay it on the ground of fraud in the holder, Ld. Tenterden, C. J., held this evidence of due notice. Wilkins v. Jadis, 1 M. & Rob. 41. A promise to pay, though conditional as to the mode of payment, is sufficient. Campbell v. Webster, 2 C. B. 258. So, where the drawer of a foreign bill, on being told it was dishonoured, said that his affairs are deranged, but that he would be glad to pay it as soon as his accounts with his agents are cleared, this is sufficient proof of a protest having been duly made. Gibbon v. Coggon, 2 Camp. 188; Greenway v. Hindley, 4 Camp. 52. Where the plaintiff gave in evidence an agreement made between the prior indorser and the defendant (the drawer), after the bill became due, reciting that the defendant had drawn the bill in question, that it was overdue and ought to be in the hands of the prior indorser, and it was agreed that the latter should take the money due to him upon the bill by instalments; this agreement was held to dispense with other proof of notice of dishonour. Gunson v. Metz, 1 B. & C. 193. But, a mere offer, upon being arrested, to give another bill, was no evidence of notice. Cuming v. French, 2 Camp. 106, n. The drawer of a bill, being applied to for payment, said, "If the acceptor does not pay, I must; but exhaust all your influence with the acceptor first ;" the drawer afterwards directed the applicant to raise the money on the lives of himself and the acceptor; it was held that this admission, though evidence, was not to be taken as conclusive of the defendant's having received, or waived, notice of dishonour of the bill. Hicks v. Beaufort, Ďk. of, 4 N. C. 229.

Notice, proof of delivery of.] By sect. 49, "(15.) Where a notice of dishonour is duly addressed and posted, the sender is deemed to have given due notice of dishonour, notwithstanding any miscarriage by the post office."

And, when the notice must be given on a certain day, it is enough if the letter be put into the post at such an hour that it would, in the usual course, be delivered on that day; Stocken v. Collin, 7 M. & W. 515. The post-mark is not conclusive of the time of posting. Ibid. If a notice is sent by post, the direction of the letter will be too general to an indorser, "Mr. H., Bristol." Walter v. Haynes, Ry. & M. 149. But, where the bill was dated "Manchester" only, it was held sufficient to direct to the drawer at "Manchester," generally. Mann v. Moors, Id. 249. So, where a person drew a bill, dating it generally "London," on an acceptor resident in London whose address was stated on the bill, it was held that proof of a letter containing notice of dishonour of the bill having been put into the post-office, addressed generally to the drawer "London," was evidence of due notice of dishonour. Clarke v. Sharpe, 3 M. & W. 166. And, in such a case this is enough, as against the drawer, though the letter never reach him, and though his residence might have been found by inquiry at the drawee's address given on the bill. Burmester v. Barron, 17 Q. B. 828 ; 21 L. J., Q. B. 135. For the plaintiff had done all that the drawer himself required, who had supplied no better address; and there was sufficient evidence of due diligence. S. C. ; and see post, p. 355. Where the plaintiff supplied goods to a company, and took in payment a bill of exchange accepted by the company, and indorsed by the defendant, a director, at the company's office, at which the defendant was in the habit of attending: it was held that notice of dishonour sent to the company's office was sufficient, although the company was then wound up, and the defendant ceased to attend at the office, and did not receive the notice till long after. ridge v. Fitzgerald, L. R., 4 Q. B. 639. If there is no post, the notice may be sent by any ordinary mode of conveyance; as in the case of a foreign

Ber

Payee or Indorsee against Drawer.—Protest.

351 bill, by the first regular ship bound for the place where notice is to be given. Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 H. Bl. 565. În proving a notice sent by post, it was ruled by Lord Ellenborough not to be sufficient to show that it was contained in a letter, which letter was put upon the table for the purpose of being carried to the post, and that, in the course of the business, all letters deposited upon that table were carried to the post; but, he said it might have been sufficient had the person, who was in the habit of carrying the letters to the post, been called, and stated that he invariably carried all such letters to the post. Hetherington v. Kemp, 4 Camp. 193. And, it was held in Skilbeck v. Garbett,7 Q. B. 846, that if it be shown that the letter was put on the proper day with others in a box in the plaintiff's office, out of which the postman invariably called every day to take the letters, this is evidence of a sending by the post without calling the postman. To prove the sending of a notice by post, the plaintiff's clerk was called, who stated that a letter containing the notice was sent by post on a Tuesday morning, but he had no recollection whether it was put in by himself or another clerk ; it was held that this was not sufficient evidence of putting into the post. Hawkes v. Salter, 4 Bing. 715. Proof that duplicate notices of dishonour were written; that a letter, of which the witness could not state the contents, was sent on the same day by the plaintiff to the defendant; and that the defendant, having received notice to produce the letter written to him on that day, refused to do so ;-was held slight prima facie evidence of the receipt of a notice. Roberts v. Bradshaw, 1 Stark. 28; see also Curlewis v. Corfield, 1 Q. B. 814.

Contents of notice, how proved.] Where a written notice has been given by a letter, a duplicate or copy is good evidence without notice to produce the letter. Kine v. Beaumont, 3 B. & B. 288. And, in the case of Swain v. Lewis, 2 C. M. & R. 261, it was held, after conference with all the judges, that it is not necessary to give a notice to produce a notice of dishonour of a bill of exchange, whether by letter or otherwise. Secondary evidence of such notice is, therefore, admissible without notice to produce. But, where, in an action against the indorser of a bill, it became necessary to prove that notice of the dishonour of other bills had been given to the defendant, for which purpose examined copies of letters containing such notices were offered, Abbott, C. J., ruled that a notice to produce such letters was necessary, and that the case did not fall within the exception as to notices respecting bills which are the subject-matter of the action. Lanauze v. Palmer, M. & M. 31, vide ante, p. 8.

Protest of bill.-Statute.] By sect. 51, "(1.) Where an inland bill" (vide sect. 4, ante, p. 319) "has been dishonoured it may, if the holder think fit, be noted for non-acceptance or non-payment, as the case may be; but it shall not be necessary to note or protest any such bill in order to preserve the recourse against the drawer or indorser."

"(2.) Where a foreign bill, appearing on the face of it to be such, has been dishonoured by non-acceptance it must be duly protested for non-acceptance, and where such a bill, which has not been previously dishonoured by nonacceptance, is dishonoured by non-payment it must be duly protested for non-payment. If it be not so protested the drawer and indorsers are discharged. Where a bill does not appear on the face of it to be a foreign bill, protest thereof in case of dishonour is unnecessary."

(3.) A bill which has been protested for non-acceptance may be subsequently protested for non-payment.'

"(4.) Subject to the provisions of this Act" (vide sub-sect. (9) and sect. 93, post, p. 352)," when a bill is noted or protested, it must be noted on the day of

its dishonour. When a bill has been duly noted, the protest may be subsequently extended as of the date of the noting."

"(5.) Where the acceptor of a bill becomes bankrupt or insolvent or suspends payment before it matures, the holder may cause the bill to be protested for better security against the drawer and indorsers."

"(6.) A bill must be protested at the place where it is dishonoured: Provided that

(a.) When a bill is presented through the post office, and returned by post dishonoured, it may be protested at the place to which it is returned and on the day of its return if received during business hours, and if not received during business hours, then not later than the next business day :

(b.) When a bill drawn payable at the place of business or residence of some person other than the drawee, has been dishonoured by nonacceptance, it must be protested for non-payment at the place where it is expressed to be payable, and no further presentment for payment to, or demand on, the drawee is necessary."

"(7.) A protest must contain a copy of the bill, and must be signed by the notary" (vide sect. 94, infra) " making it, and must specify(a.) The person at whose request the bill is protested :

(b.) The place and date of protest, the cause or reason for protesting the bill, the demand made, and the answer given, if any, or the fact that the drawee or acceptor could not be found."

"(8.) Where a bill is lost or destroyed, or is wrongly detained from the person entitled to hold it, protest may be made on a copy or written particulars thereof."

“(9.) Protest is dispensed with by any circumstance which would dispense with notice of dishonour. Delay in noting or protesting is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate the bill must be noted or protested with reasonable diligence."

Sect. 93. "For the purposes of this Act, where a bill or note is required to be protested within a specified time or before some further proceeding is taken, it is sufficient that the bill has been noted for protest before the expiration of the specified time or the taking of the proceeding; and the formal protest may be extended at any time thereafter as of the date of the noting."

Sect. 94. "Where a dishonoured bill or note is authorised or required to be protested, and the services of a notary cannot be obtained at the place where the bill is dishonoured, any householder or substantial resident of the place may, in the presence of two witnesses, give a certificate, signed by them, attesting the dishonour of the bill, and the certificate shall in all respects operate as if it were a formal protest of the bill."

A form is given in Schedule 1 to the Act, which if used is sufficient.

Protest.] In case of an inland bill, a protest is unnecessary and of no effect. Windle v. Andrews, 2 B. & A. 696; Bonar v. Mitchell, 5 Exch. 415. In case of a foreign bill, notice of dishonour without notice of protest is sufficient, if the party to whom notice is given resides in this country ; Robins v. Gibson, 1 M. & S. 288; and it is sufficient, though he should happen at the time of the dishonour to be absent abroad; Cromwell v. Hynson, 2 Esp. 511. In giving notice of non-payment to the drawer of a foreign bill resident abroad, it is necessary to give him notice that the bill has been protested; Robins v. Gibson, 1 M. & S. 289, per Ld. Ellenborough, C. J.; but it is not necessary to send him a copy of the protest. Goodman v. Harvey,