Whitcomb

The questions arising on these two appeals are identical. References to the facts and to the parties will be according to the record in Whitcomb v. Huse, The action was brought to recover on two promissory notes, Huse being sued as a maker and Woodruff as an indorser. Judgment went for the plaintiff and Woodruff appeals.

It is contended by the appellant, among other things, that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the notary’s certificates of protest of the notes sued upon and also his certificates of notice of protest. The ground of the contention is that the documents failed to comply with the terms of section 795 of the Political Code, which provides that protests, stating certain facts, including “the reputed place of residence” of the party to a bill or note and of the party to whom it was given, “and the postoffice nearest thereto,” are prima facie evidence of the matters stated in them. Both of the instruments which were received in evidence are to be considered together in determining whether the “protest” is so complete in its subject matter, under section 795, as to make it prima facie evidence of the matters stated in it (Kellogg v. Pacific Box Factory, 57…