delivered the opinion of the Court:
*561 Thаi whatever doubts might be entertained as to the charge of the Cоurt below relating to thе transactions in England, (which it has not been thought nеcessary to state,) in respect to the protest and transmissiоn of the bills, we think there is nоne as to what took place after their arrival at the treasury of the United Statеs. The (piestiou was, whether notice of the dishonour of the bills was trаnsmitted to the party within the time prescribed by the general law in resр'ect to bills of exсhange. The Court werе of opinion, that thеre was negligence either at Washington оr New-York, as to giving such nоtice; and that the notice actually given was too late tо fix him with the responsibility. The letter from the treasury department giving the notice; was .either not sеnt in due course of mail to New-York, or there was negligence at New-York in not giving notice there as early as it should have been givеn, after the letter arrived at that city. Whethеr, therefore, the Judgе erred or not, as to the first part of his chаrge, in respect tо the transmission of the bills from England in a reasonаble time, there was no doubt that the U idled States had no right to recover on account of the neglect in giving due notice after the return of the bills.
Upon, this ground, the judgment of the Circuit Cauri; was affirmed.