Majority
Headnote
Defendant was indorser of a promissory note payable on the 3rd of April, and notice of protest was on that day duly mailed by a notary, addressed to defendant at his place of residence; and on the • next day the notary enclosed a duplicate of this notice to one of the officers of a bank which was the owner of the note in suit. On the trial defendant produced the duplicate notice, which bore date the 17th of April, and was addressed to defendant at a place, not the place of his residence, in the handwriting of the teller of the bank; defendant also gave some negative evidence to show that he had not received the first notice. Held, -that defendant had been duly notified.By the Court,
I think the learned judge was right. The proof had been full and explicit that notice of non-payment of the note, directed to the defendant at the proper place, was duly mailed in the city of N. Y., and that offered by way of rebutting or explaining it was extremely weak and unsatisfactory.
The notice directed to Kempville in no way impaired the proof that one had been properly directed to Lockport, or rather confirmed Ricker’s account of the matter; the former was the one enclosed to Andrews, which he must have forwarded to Falconer, and was there directed by mistake to the wrong place.
It appears to me if the judge had submitted the question of notice to the jury upon the evidence as it stood before
New trial denied.