Hopwood, 2 Taunt. 61. Garnett v. Woodcock, I Stark. 475. Although, since the statute 1 & 2 G. 4. c. 78., the holder of a bill accepted payable at a banker's (not saying, " and not otherwise," &c.) is not obliged, in order to charge the acceptor, to present it for payment there; Turner v. Hayden, 4 B. & C. 2. ; yet a presentment there, and refusal, will, it seems, be sufficient to charge the drawer. Semb. Macintosh v. Haydon, R. & M. 363. Where the bill is drawn payable (in the body of it) in London, and is accepted payable at A. B. in London (without saying "not otherwise," &c.) in an action against the drawer presentment in London must be proved; statute 1 & 2 G. 4. c. 78. being confined to the case of actions against acceptors. Gibb v. Mather, 8 Bing. 214. ; S. C. 2 C. & J. 254. Under the general averment that the bill was duly presented (without stating an acceptance), the plaintiff may prove a presentment at the place mentioned in the acceptance. Parks v. Edge, ì C. & M. 429. If the presentment be at the place mentioned in the acceptance, the handwriting of the acceptor must be proved; otherwise it would not appear that the place indicated in the acceptance was appointed by him. Sedgwick v. Jager, 5 C. & P. 199. Where a bill was drawn on P. P. No. 6. Budge Row and accepted, in an action against the drawer an averment, that the bill was presented and shewn to P. P. for payment, was held to be supported by proof that the holder went to No. 6., but found the house shut up and no one there; for the words" and shewn" are surplusage; and notice of dishonour may be given on the same day. Hine v. Allely, 4 B. & Ad. 624. And where the bill is directed to the drawee by a certain address, and accepted generally, it is enough to present it to an inmate of the house at such address, though the drawee has in the mean time removed. Buxton v. Jones, 1 M. & G. 83.

Presentment, proof of, when dispensed with.] When due presentment is traversed, evidence that excuses non-presentment cannot be admitted. Per Parke B. in Burg v. Legge, 5 M. & W. 421. Thus, if the acceptor cannot be found, so that no presentment can be made, this must be specially averred, and cannot be shewn on issue joined upon presentment. Leeson v. Pigott, Bayley on Bills, 324. But where the presentment is informal only, and the want of strictness is owing to the acceptor's default; as where the acceptor had changed his residence as described in the bill, and the plaintiff had presented it to an inmate at the late residence; there the averment of due presentment is supported. Buxton v. Jones, 1 M. & G. 83. So where the presentment is delayed by circumstances which constitute an excuse; as where the place of presentment is in the occupation of the king's enemies; for " duly presented, means presented according to the custom of merchants, which necessarily implies an exception in favour of those unavoidable accidents which must prevent the party from doing it within the regular time.” Per Lord Ellenborough C. J., in Patience v. Townley, 2 Smith, 224. But a promise by the drawer to pay dispenses with the necessity of proving actual presentment; for such a promise is primâ facie evidence that every thing has been done to entitle the plaintiff to demand the amount of the bill from the defendant. Croxon v. Worthen, 5 M. & W. 5.

Default of drawee or acceptor.] If the action is brought on a refusal to accept, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to shew that the drawee refused

to accept it generally, or according to the terms of the bill. Boehm v. Garcias, 1 Camp. 425. (n.) It is not sufficient to shew that the bill was presented to some person on the drawee's premises who refused to accept it, without connecting that person with the drawee; Check v. Roper, 5 Esp. 175.; unless the acceptor has left no one else on the premises where he is described as living. Brown v. M'Dermot, 5 Esp. 265. The refusal to accept, or pay, may be proved by the person who presented the bill for acceptance or payment.

Notice of dishonour, what sufficient.] There is no prescribed form of notice; but a mere demand of payment, without notice of the dishonour, is not sufficient. Hartley v. Case, 4 B. & C. 339. The notice must state, either expressly or in effect, that the bill has been dishonoured. Therefore the following notice from the attorney of the holder has been held insufficient: "A bill for 683/. drawn, &c., and bearing your indorsement, has been put into our hands by Mr. A. with directions to take legal measures for the recovery thereof unless immediately paid." Solarte v. Palmer, 7 Bing. 530. S. C. on error in Dom. Proc. 1 New Ca. 194. This decision has been considered to be against the weight of previous authorities and the general opinion of the profession; it is therefore not extended to any case not clearly within its principle. See the remarks of Tindal C. J. in Messenger v. Southey, i M. &G. 81. In the case of Grugeon v. Smith, 6 A. & E. 499. Patteson J., at Nisi Prius, held a notice in the following words sufficient: "Your bill due this day has been returned with charges, to which we request your immediate attention ;" and the Court of King's Bench held the decision was right; and this case was approved of by the Court of Exchequer in Hedger v. Steavenson, 2 M. & W. 799., where a notice in the following words was held sufficient: "I am desired by Mr. Hedger to give you notice that a promissory note for 991. 18s., payable to your order two months after the date thereof, became due yesterday and has been returned unpaid, and I have to request you will please remit the amount thereof, with ls. 6d. noting, free of post." But see Boulton v. Welsh, 3 New Ca. 688. "D.'s acceptance has been presented for payment, and returned, and now remains unpaid" is sufficient. Cooke v. French, 10 A. & E. 131. It is enough if the notice conveys to the mind of the receiver, by reasonable intendment, the following facts; 1. That the bill has been presented when due; 2. That it has been dishonoured; 3. That the party addressed is to be held liable on it. Per Parke B. in Lewis v. Gompertz, 6 M. & W. 399. "I have received an

intimation from B. and M. Bank that your draft on A. B. has been dishonoured, and have requested them to proceed in the same;" held sufficient; for "dishonour" implies presentment. Shelton v. Braithwaite, 7 M. & W. 436. But where the notice shews no presentment, as where it states only non-payment of the bill, it is not enough. Strange v. Price, 10 A. & E. 125. So a notice in the following form was held bad: "This is to inform you that the bill I took of you is not taken up; and 4s. 6d. expenses; and the money I must pay immediately." Messenger v. Southey, 1 M. & G. 76.

A written notice is not required. Crosse v. Smith, 1 M. & S. 545. Housego v. Cowne, 2 M. & W. 349. If a witness proves that he verbally told the drawer of a bill of exchange, that his bill for 301. drawn on T. had come back dishonoured, and that he had produced the bill

and pointed out to the drawer the notary's mark upon it, this is sufficient notice of dishonour. Phillips v. Gould, 8 C. & P. 355.

By whom given.] It is sufficient if the defendant has had notice of the dishonour of the bill from any person who is party to it; Chapman v. Keane, 3 A. & E. 193.; though it was formerly thought the notice must come from the holder. Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167. But notice given by a person not a party to the bill, without any authority, is not sufficient. Stewart v. Kennett, 2 Camp. 177. A notice by the plaintiff's attorney, not stating on whose behalf the notice is given, is sufficient. Woodthorpe v. Lawes, 2 M. & W. 109.

To whom notice should be given.] Where the holder of a bill is desirous of suing all the parties to it, he should give notice to all; for if he only gives notice to his immediate indorser, &c. it is possible that such notice may not be regularly transmitted to the prior parties, who may consequently be discharged. But if he gives notice to his immediate indorser, and he in due time to his indorser, and so on to the drawer, the holder may sue all or any of such parties, and it is no objection in such case that there was no notice immediately from the plaintiff to the defendant. Bayley on Bills, 209. Rosc. Dig. Bills, 198. The bankruptcy of the drawer does not dispense with proof of notice; and where notice was given to a bankrupt drawer before the appointment of assignees, it was held sufficient. Ex parte Moline, 19 Ves. 216. Where the drawer had become bankrupt and absconded, but his house remained open in the possession of the messenger, and no notice was given to the drawer, or left at his house, or given to the assignees, the drawer's estate was held to be discharged. Rohde v. Proctor, 4 B. & C. 517. Where the bankrupt had left his house, it was held that notice should be left there, and with the messenger in possession. Ex parte Johnson, 1 Mont. & Ayr. 622., 3 Deacon & Ch. 433. S. C. Where the drawer is dead, notice should be given to his executors or administrators. Chitty on Bills, 295. 5th ed. 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. The indorser of a dishonoured bill was abroad in Jamaica, but had a house in England; a notice was sent to his house, and the bill was shewn to his wife, who was informed of the non-payment; Lord Kenyon held it 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. Bishop v. Rowe, 3 M. & S. 362.

Time within which notice must be given.] The general rule with regard to inland bills is, that, where the parties do not reside in the same town, it is sufficient to send a notice by the post on the day following that on which the party receives intelligence of the dishonour. Williams v. Smith, 2 B. & A. 496. Where there is a post on the day on which the party receives the notice, and no post on the following day, it is sufficient to forward the notice by the post of the third day. Geill v. Jeremy, M. & M. 61. If the parties reside in the same town, notice

must be given before the expiration of the day after that on which it has been received. Smith v. Mullett, 2 Camp. 208. Where the party receives notice on Sunday, Good-Friday, or Christmas-day, he is in the same situation as if it did not reach him till the next day. Bray v. Hadwen, 5 M. & S. 68. And where a bill is payable on the day preceding Christmas-day, Good-Friday, Thanksgiving-day, or Fast-day, it is not necessary for the holder to give notice until the day next after such Christmas-day, &c., 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 15. A Jew is not obliged to forward notice on the day of a great Jewish religious festival. Lindo v. Unsworth, 2 Camp. 602. If the holder place the bill in the hands of his banker, the latter is only bound to give notice to his customer in like manner as if he were himself the holder; and the customer has the same time to communicate the notice as if he had received it from the holder. Haynes v. Birks, 3 B. §. P. 599. Langdale v. Trimmer, 15 East, 291. Where laches is once incurred, the drawer is discharged, though he receive notice at the time within which, had each person regularly transmitted notice to another, he would have received it. Turner v. Leech, 4 B. & A. 451. Marsh v. Maxwell, 2 Camp. 210. (n). A notice on the day on which the bill becomes due is not too soon; for though payment may still be made within the day, non-payment on due presentment is a dishonour. Burbridge v. Manners, 3 Camp. 193. Hine v. Allely, 4 B. & Ad. 624. Where a bill is accepted payable abroad by a foreign acceptor, it is enough to give to the defendant such notice of dishonour and protest as the foreign law requires. Rothschild v. Currie, 1 Q. B. 43.

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, and such mistake arose from the indistinctness of the drawer's writing on the bill, he is not discharged. Hewitt v. Thomson, 1 M. & Rob. 543.

Delivery or giving of notice, proof of] Strict proof of notice may be dispensed with by a distinct admission of liability; as by a promise to pay. Hicks v. Duke of Beaufort, 4 New Ca. 229. So a declaration by the defendant of his intention to pay the bill, "and not to avail himself of the informality of notice," is evidence of due notice; the expressions being too vague to shew that there really was any informality in it. 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 it evidence of due notice. Wilkins v. Jadis, 1 M. & Rob. 41.

It is sufficient proof of the delivery of a notice in writing, to shew that it was sent in a letter by the post, without proving that the letter was received; Saunderson v. Judge, 2 H. Bl. 509., Scott v. Lifford, 9 East, 347.; and in case of the London post when the notice must be given on a certain day, the letter must be put into the post at such an hour that it may, 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 must not be too general, as "Mr. Haynes, Bristol"; Walter v. Haynes, R. & M. 149. But where the bill was dated "Manchester,"

it was held sufficient to direct to the drawer at "Manchester," generally. Mann v. Moors, R. & M. 249. So where a party 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. If there is no post, the notice may be sent by any ordinary mode of conveyance; as, in case of a foreign bill, by the first regular ship bound for the place where notice is to be given. Muilman v. D'Eguino, 2 H. Bl. 565. In proving a notice sent by post, it was ruled by Lord Ellenborough not to be sufficient to shew that it was contained in a letter, which letter was put upon a table for the purpose of being carried to the post, and that, in the course of business, all letters deposited on that table were carried to the post; but perhaps 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. Where, 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 Thursday 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. See antè, p. 10. Notice to the drawer by sending to his counting-house during business hours several times, and knocking and waiting there without effect, is sufficient without leaving a written notice, or sending one by post. Crosse v. Smith, 1 M. & S. 545.

Contents of notice, how proved.] Where a written notice has been given, but no duplicate or copy kept, it is not requisite to give a notice to produce the notice of dishonour; parol evidence of the contents, without a notice to produce, will be admitted. Ackland v. Pearce, 2 Camp. 601. (See cases cited antè, p. 6.) And where a duplicate original or copy of the notice has been kept, it is good evidence without notice to produce; Kine v. Beaumont, 3 B. & B. 288.; and in the case of Swain v. Lewis, 2 C. M. & R. 263., 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. Secondary evidence of such notice is, therefore, admissible without proof of notice to produce it. 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 of bills which are the subject-matter of the action, and where no notice is necessary. Lanauze v. Palmer, M. & M. 31. Ante p. 6. 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; was held slight primâ facie evidence of the receipt of a notice. Roberts v. Bradshaw, 1 Stark. 28. acc. Curlewis v. Corfield, 1 Q. B. 814.