case borough against Perkins in a action against the drawer of a inland bill  of exchange it be not necessary to set forth a protest for the statute and  will c do not destroy the action for want of a protest but only deprive the  party from recover interest and cost and therefore if the drawer sustain  damage for want of a protest they shall be bear by the holder S c salk S c  salk S c holt S c ld ray Writ of error of a judgement upon nil to say in the  court of common plea in a action bring against the drawer of a inland bill of  exchange Raymond object that since the statute of and will c no damage shall  be recover against the drawer upon a bill of exchange without a protest and  therefore the action lie not here be none holt chief justice the statute never  mean to destroy the action for want of a protest but only to deprive the party  from recover interest and cost upon a inland bill against the drawer without  notice of nonpayment by protest for before the statute there be this  difference between foreign bill and inland bill of exchange if a bill be  foreign one can not resort to the drawer for nonacceptance or nonpayment  modern er p without a protest and reasonable notice thereof but in case of  inland bill there be no occasion for a protest but if any prejudice happen to  the drawer by the nonpayment of the drawee and that for want of notice of  nonpayment which he to modern who the bill be make ought to give the drawer be  not liable and the word damage in the statute be mean only of the damage that  the party be at in be long out of his money by the nonpayment of the drawee  than the tenor of the bill purport and not of damage for the original debt and  the protest be order for the benefit of the drawer for if any damage accrue to  the drawer for want of a protest that shall be bear by he to who the bill be  make and if no damage accrue to he then there be no harm do to he a protest be  only to give formal notice that the bill be not accept or if accept that it be  not pay and if in such case the damage amount to the value of the bill there  shall be no recovery but otherwise he ought not to lose his debt but that  ought to appear either in evidence upon non assumpsit or by special plead the  Act be very obscure and doubtful pen and we ought not by construction upon  such all Act to take away a man right the whole court be of the same opinion  another exception be that the writ of inquiry in the common plea be returnable  quinden Martini which be always on the twentyfifth of November a fix day and  it be return as execute the twentyfifth of November last that be on the day on  which it be returnable and that be a contradiction but by holt chief justice  though a writ be returnable on such a day yet they never come in until the  quarto die post and a writ may be execute on the day of its return and he  agree that they must judicial take notice on what day quinden Martini fall  because they must take notice of holiday consecrated Martini and on what day  it be and the almanac be part of the law of England and so of year leap and  that it will be the same in case of movable feast for the diversity between  fix and movable feast be ridiculous for if we judge of fix feast by the  almanac as the book that take the diversity admit why not of the other but the  almanac to go by be that which be annex to the commonprayerbook and the  judgement be affirm by the whole court