The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-04-17
Be OUR GUESTS TONIGHT.

entitled 10 recover in the present acton, ana
we are Of the opinion that n is not
I'm the first place there WAS no proof ot the
dishonor of the note
po NOT CONCUR.
After giving his reason for this and citing
law boz support Dee says. 'lt l- ouuteuded by
the defendant the plaintiff ln error here
that the court below erred DID, treating the
note sued on as negotiable. but We 90 not
concur jan this view for he says. 10 having
been executed in New York whore 1t l- cone
coded il is NEGOTIABLE But as already stated
the only evidence OF its dlsh0nor was the GER
tifcate of the New York notary and that,
according 20 the statutes of tins State, wa,
not evidence for the purpose for which IT was
offered
Tho note was payable not in this State. hut
IN New ork. and Dis therefore NOT within our
statute permitting the protest of promissory
notes az "a particular bank or office Tor dis
count or deposit, and # which the protest is
made evidence of what is stated therein.
The Legislature ha, not seen fit 90 make
national certificates of protest payable out
side of the State as evidence in our courts.
In the third place. there ls mo- proof ~ due
notice % the defendant of the dshonOl
of the note. Although there IS DIN renee If
opinion as - what is q reasonable time within
which notice must be given Boy the holder io
hi, endorser II is ordinarily settled that the
next business day after maturity l- The latest
Tor that purpose.
The only evidence in the present case i,
that the cashier of tine bank testified That
notices of the protest were received by him
from New York on Monday, October II, 1851
and That ON the same dav hc mailed copy
to- the defendant at DanNilie. The note
matmed ou the 18th. and there is no evidence
as to the time when the notice was maliod ln
New York
For ought the record shows the notice may
have been mailed In New York on SUNDAY
The 10th. OF on Monday the 18th. and ID not
mailed before that time 10 was too late 10
avail The application of these cle-
mentary principles % the present case Iow-
very clearly. We think. that the Judgment
here complained of Is erroneous and that the
same must bee reversed and % Judgment en-
tered for the defendant
other Opinions Delivered.
Campbell against Shipman From the Cir
cunt Court of the city OF Alexandria. Affirmed,
Judge Lacy delivering opinion. concUrred in
10y Judges Lewis and Fauntlcroy. Judge
Hinton not sitting and Judge Richardson dis
senting.
Terry against the Commonwealth. From
the County Court of Campbell county. Re
Versed. Judge Fnuntlcroy delivering opinion.
billiard and ais. against Turner's admins
traitor From the Circuit Court of Amherst
county. Affirmed, Judge Hinton delivering
Roller against iHnger Removed 10
StauntOn.
Tyler. receiver. against Sites. administrator.
WHIT of error and ,uper~eleas awarded 10
judgment rendered by Circuit Court OF Shen-
andoah county Oh the DIST OF October 1890
Goodman. &c. against llaskus Writ Of
error refused % judgement rendered by the
Circuit Court Of Powhaian county ON the 18th
of April. 1890
Thomas against Sellman Argued by y. T..
Crump Esq. for appellant and submitted
Nhlteaw against Sims: Daniel against
Wharton: Marshall against Lake. Continued
Chalhey against City of Richmond Ar
cued by +. II. Mcclure, Esq, for plaintiff in
error