$92. When noting equivalent to protest. then on the next following Monday; Good Friday, the First Monday of May, the First Monday of August, Christmas Day, if this day fall on a Sunday, then the next following Monday. (b.) Vide 34 Vict. c. 17, and 38 Vict. c. 13. See Appendix. (c.) Vide 34 Vict. c. 17, § 4. Appendix. (d.) This applies even though that day be a day on which by the religion of the person required to do the Act, work is prohibited-e.g., the Jews. 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 (a). (a.) Noting consists in the notary making on the bill a memorandum of the dates, consisting usually of the date of presentment and refusal to accept or pay, and his initials; adding N.P. and the names and designations of the witnesses. He then enters in his protocol the fact of presentment, or non-acceptance or non-payment, its date, the reason given, if any, and the taking of the protests. From these materials he may at any time make out an instrument of protest, vide Appendix Forms, p. 268, as of the date of the noting, see Bell's Conveyancing, I. pp. 465-468; Byles on Bills, pp. 263-264. The certificate which may be given, where the services of a notary cannot be obtained, must be made as in § 94 directed, and cannot be made up from a note and entry in a book, as in the case of a notarial protest. notary not 94. Where a dishonoured bill or note (a) is $94. authorised or required to be protested (b), and the Protest when services of a notary cannot be obtained at the place accessible. 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. The form given in Schedule 1 to this Act may be used with necessary modifications, and if used shall be sufficient (c). (a.) Vide §§ 43, 47. (b.) Vide §§ 51, 67, 68, 89 (4). (c.) It is thought that this certificate will not form a warrant for summary diligence in Scotland, vide § 98, as the use of such a certificate would alter the law and practice in Scotland, vide Act 1681, c. 20, which requires that a bill shall be duly protested, and the protest registered. It would also alter the practice in allowing diligence on a certificate, which might require to be supported by evidence, that (1) the person signing it is a householder or substantial resident, and (2) that the services of a notary could not be procured. In England the Act introducing summary procedure on bills, does not require that a protest be taken in order to enable a holder of a bill to avail himself of its provisions. warrants may 95. The provisions of this Act as to crossed cheques Dividend shall apply to a warrant for payment of dividend (a). be crossed. (a.) Vide § 76-82. 96. The enactments mentioned in the second Repeal. § 96. Savings. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 97. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89. schedule to this Act are hereby repealed as from the commencement of this Act to the extent in that schedule mentioned (a). Provided that such repeal shall not affect anything done or suffered, or any right, title, or interest acquired or accrued before the commencement of this Act, or any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such thing, right, title, or interest. (a.) The Acts relating to bills of exchange, cheques, and promissory notes, so far as not repealed are printed in the Appendix. 97. (1.) The rules in bankruptcy relating to bills of exchange, promissory notes, and cheques, shall continue to apply thereto notwithstanding anything in this Act contained (a). (2.) The rules of common law including the law merchant (b), save in so far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, shall continue to apply to bills of exchange, promissory notes, and cheques: (3.) Nothing in this Act or in any repeal effected thereby shall effect— (a.) The provisions of the Stamp Act, 1870, or Acts (c.) The provisions of any Act relating to or con firming the privileges of the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland respectively: (d.) The validity of any usage relating to dividend warrants, or the indorsements thereof. (a.) A solvent person may dispose of his property, and grant obligations affecting his estate, as he pleases, but if he become insolvent, or bankrupt, the law interferes to prevent his doing so in such a way as to injure his creditors. (1.) At common law accordingly, in Scotland, bills granted without valuable consideration by an insolvent can be set aside by his creditors, but as the proof of insolvency and of the want of value lies upon the creditors, several statutory enactments have been introduced to facilitate the challenge of creditors, and to put a check upon frauds, II. Bell's Com. 170. (2.) Under the Act 1621, c. 18, a creditor or a trustee for creditors may challenge bills granted by an insolvent to conjunct or confident persons without true, just, and necessary causes, and without a just price really paid. Where the challenge is at the instance or on behalf of prior creditors, the insolvency of the granter is carried back, presumptione juris to the date of the bill, and it is also presumed that no value was given therefor. A posterior creditor must establish that the granter was insolvent at its date. In either case, it must be proved that the grantee is a conjunct or confident person. Conjunct persons are near relations of the granter-viz., parents and children, brothers and sisters, uncles, stepsons, sons-in-law, brothers-in-law. Confident persons includes all persons who are in intimate and confidential intercourse with the granter―e.g., partners, servants, factors, and confidential men of business. On this relationship being proved, and insolvency being presumed or proved, the onus is thrown upon the grantee of proving that he gave value for the bill, either to the debtor or to some third party. Thus, a bill granted in security of money lent to a third party, is granted for valuable consideration. Where P § 97. $97. the Act applies, the ordinary presumption that value has been given is reversed, whether the bill bear to be for value or not, and the grantee must prove the existence of the debt, or the onerosity of the consideration otherwise than by the bill itself. Challenge under this Act is excluded where the debtor has, while solvent, come under a legal obligation to grant a bill, though the bill itself be granted after insolvency. A bill also cannot be challenged under this Act if it has passed into the hands of a holder in due course, II. Bell's Com. 171183, Thomas v. Thomson, 20th July, 1865, 3 M. 1160. Bills and notes come under the operation of the Act if they are granted as voluntary rights in defraud of the lawful and more timely diligence of another creditor—e.g., a bill granted in order that it may be intimated to the drawee, and so anticipate a creditor who is in course of arresting the fund in the drawee's hands, II. Bell's Com. pp. 184-191. (3.) By the Bankruptcy Act, 1696, c. 5, which has been held to apply to bills and notes, indorsations, and transfers of bills, payable to bearer, by delivery granted or made by a notour bankrupt, as defined in that statute, or by 19 & 20 Vict. c. 79, §§ 7-9, or by 43 & 44 Vict. c. 34, § 6, at or after his becoming bankrupt, or within sixty days before his bankruptcy, in favour of his creditors, either for their satisfaction or further security, these writings are void and null. Bills or notes granted for present value, though within the sixty days, are not struck at by the Act, nor are payments of debts made as they fall due in the usual course of trade, by means of bank notes, which are looked upon as equivalent to cash; payments also by a cheque or bank-draft, or even by the indorsation of a short dated bill, seem not to fall within the scope of the Act. But a premature payment is struck at, Macfarlane v. Robb & Co., 24th Dec. 1870, 9 M. 370. It is not sufficient to protect a transaction from the operation of the Act, that money has been advanced on a promise or obligation to grant a security for it, where the security is actually granted within sixty days of bankruptcy, Inglis v. Mansfield, 10th April, 1831, 1 Sh. and M'L. 203; Moncrieff v. Union Bank, 16th Dec. 1851, 14 D. 200; II. Bell's Com. 209-211. Formerly, where unindorsed bills were deposited |