صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

In some of the provinces these fees were settled by § 93. statute; in others they were regulated by usages which were by no means uniform.


The fees allowed in Ontario before the Act

were regulated by R. S. C. c. 123, s. 25, and were as

For the protest of any bill, draft, note or order
For every notice.....

For postage, the amount actually expended.


0 25

Quebec. The tariff of fees and charges in Quebec is found in Schedule B to R. S. C. c. 123, and is as follows:

For presenting and noting for non-acceptance
any bill of exchange, and keeping the same
on record
Copy of the same when required by the holder
For noting and protesting for non-payment any

bill of exchange, or promissory note, draft
or order, and putting the same on record..
For making and furnishing the holder of any
bill or note with duplicate copy of any pro-
test for non-acceptance or non-payment,
with certificate of service and copy of
notice served upon the drawer and indorsers
For every notice, including the service and
recording copy of the same, to an indorser
or drawer, in addition to the postages actu-
ally paid ...

[ocr errors]

0 50

1 00

0 50

0 50

Nova Scotia. The following tariff is laid down in R. S. C. c. 123, s. 7, for the protest of bills of exchange and promissory notes of $40 and upwards drawn or made at any place in this province upon or in favor of any person in the province :

For the protest

For each notice

For other than local bills and notes the former

charge of $2.50 for each protest, includ

ing notices, is still made.

Postage being additional in all cases.


0 25

§ 93.

New Brunswick.-The statute of this province, 46
Vict. c. 11, prescribed the following tariff:

For the presentment and noting of any bill of
exchange or promissory note, for non-
acceptance or non-payment.......

Protest of note or bill of exchange, when made,
including presentment, noting and notice
Necessary postage to be allowed.


1 00

As the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, the constitutionality of this provincial Act is open to question. It is said that the charge still usually made in this province is that in force before the Act in question, viz. :—

For protest and all notices
Postage actually paid.


Prince Edward Island.-R. S. C. c. 123, s. 8, lays down for this province a tariff similar to that for Nova Scotia. The old tariff was framed in 1776, and allowed:For noting bills for non-acceptance......

[blocks in formation]

1s. Od. Stg.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Manitoba. The charges in this province appear to be regulated by usage, and are as follows:

For protest


For each notice

Postage in addition.


0 50

North West Territories.-The charges here also are governed by usage, and are as follows:

For protest

For each notice


0 50

Postage in addition.

British Columbia. The charges here also are governed

by usage, and are as follows:—

For protest and notices

Postage in addition.


4. The forms in the first schedule to this Act § 93. may be used in noting or protesting any bill or Forms. note and in giving notice thereof. A copy of the bill or note and indorsement may be included in the forms, or the original bill or note may be annexed and the necessary changes in that behalf made in the forms:

The second part of this sub-section is substantially a repetition of section 51, s-s. 7.

The forms in the first schedule to this Act are copied without change from Schedule B. to R. S. C. c. 123, where they were applicable to the province of Quebec alone, having been inserted there from the schedules to chapter 64 of the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada.

It will be observed that even the words "protested in duplicate" have been retained. In Quebec it was formerly compulsory to make out the protest in duplicate and to copy the bill or note in the protest. Neither of these is required by the present Act, so that these words are now inappropriate.

Form J. also provides for an attesting witness and the seal of the justice of the peace, although neither of these is required by the Act. As a matter of prudence it might be well to have a witness sign and to affix the seal in such a case, although the use of the forms is not imperative, and immaterial variations would not vitiate them: R. S. C. c. 1, s. 7, s-s. 44.

It is a recognized rule in the construction of statutes. that their operation will not be restrained by any reference to the words of a form given for convenience sake in a schedule; and if the enacting part and the schedule do not correspond, the latter must yield to the former: re Daines,

§ 93. 1 Cr. & P. 31 (1840); Dean v. Green, 8 P. D. at pp. 89, 90 (1882).

prima facie evidence.

Protest 5. A protest of any bill or note, and any copy therof as copied by the notary or justice of the peace, shall, in any action be prima facie evidence of presentation and dishonor, and also of service of notice of such presentation and dishonor as stated in such protest.

Crossed dividend warrants.

This provision is taken in substance from Article 2305 of the Civil Code, which also made the duplicate prima facie evidence. For similar provisions as to protests in Ontario, see C. S. C. c. 57, s. 6, and R. S. O. c. 61, ss. 31-34; and for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, R. S. C. c. 123, ss. 7, 8, 10.

See also Ross v. McKindsay, 1 U. C. Q. B. 507 (1845); Codd v. Lewis, 8 ibid. 242 (1850); Merchants' Bank v. McDougall, 30 U. C. C. P. 236 (1879); Southam v. Ranton, 9 Ont. A. R. 530 (1883).

Section 71 (f) makes protests out of Canada also prima facie evidence in all courts.

94. The provisions of this Act as to crossed cheques shall apply to a warrant for payment of dividend. Imp. Act, s. 95.

These warrants are not defined in the Act, and this section is the only provision in it concerning them. The Imperial Act contains in addition a proviso that nothing in the Act or in any repeal effected by it shall affect the validity of any usage relating to dividend warrants, or the indorsement thereof: section 97, 3 (d). This was inserted to protect the usage of paying these warrants on the indorsement of one of several payees, instead of having all indorse as required by section 32, s-s. 3.

In Partridge v. Bank of England, 9 Q. B. 396 (1846), it § 94. was held that Bank of England dividend warrants payable to a person by name, and not to his order or bearer, were not negotiable, although it was the practice of bankers to treat them as negotiable. Such bills would now be negotiable under section 8, s-s. 4.

In Canada they are usually called dividend cheques, and made payable to order; so that sections 75 to 81 relating to crossed cheques would have applied to them in this form independently of the present section. When they are issued by a bank and drawn upon itself, drawer and drawee being the same person, the holder might at his option treat them as promissory notes, in which case the crossing would be inappropriate.

It is probable that it would be only those that are drawn upon an incorporated bank, that would be held to be dividend warrants within the meaning of the Act, as the policy of the Act is not to recognize any instrument as a cheque which is not drawn upon one of these banks.

95. The enactments mentioned in the second Repeal, schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, as from the commencement of this Act, to the extent in that schedule mentioned :—

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: Imp Act, s. 96.

The Acts named in the second schedule were considered to be the only Dominion or Provincial enactments relating to bills and notes not previously repealed.


« السابقةمتابعة »