The certificate, whether it be of a protest of domestic paper made evidence by statute or a foreign protest, is not conclusive, but it is prima facie evidence.1 The statements contained therein may be contradicted, whether as to the fact of demand or the recitals of demand or notice contained in the certificate,2 but the evidence to contradict must be legally v. Wadsworth, 23 Me. 553; Caruth-ers v. Harbert, 5 Cold. 362.

2 Bell v. Lunt, 24 Wend. 230.

3Elliot v. White, 51 N. C. 98. But see note 6, infra.

4 See the preceding section.

5 See note 27 to preceding section, and Bell v. Lunt, 24 Wend. 230. But see Reier v. Strauss, 54 Md. 278, and Weems v. Bank of Maryland, 15 Md. 231.

6 Coleman v. Smith, 26 Pa. 255; O'Connel v. Walker, 1 Port. 263; Fortin v. Field, 17 La. 587. Compare Elliot v. White, 51 N. C. 98.

7Dumont v. Pope, 7 Blackf. 367; Moore v. Worthington, 2 Duv. 307; Adams v. Wright, 14 Wis. 408; Maccoun v. Atchafalaya Bank, 13 La. 342. See Gage v. Dubuque R. Co., 11 Iowa, 310.

1 Nichols v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326: Gordon v. Price, 10 Ind. 385 (under statute); Cockrill v. Lowenstine, 9 Heisk. 206.

2 See cases in last note and Spence v. Crockett. 5 Baxt. 576; Adams v. Wright, 14 Wis. 408; Orono Bank v. Wood, 49 Me. 26; Kellogg v. Pacific Box Factory, 57 Cal. 327; Applegarth v. Aybott, 64 Cal. 459; Sather v. Rogers, 10 Iowa, 231. The certificate, it seems, may be impeached by particular or general malpractice of the notary. Wood v. Am. Ins. Co., 7 How. (Miss.) 609; Seltzer v. Fuller, 6 Smedes & M. 185. As to evidence see Buckley v. Seymour, 30 La. Ann. 1341; Young v. Pattison, 11 Rob. (La.) 7; Fales sufficient for that purpose; for, as we have seen, the fact, standing alone, that notice was not received has no tendency to contradict the fact that it was mailed.3 But it has been held that the notary himself cannot impeach his own certificate,4 and it has been held that he can. The certificate of protest upon a foreign bill of exchange is necessary, and the certificate, while it may be contradicted, cannot be added to or helped out by parol evidence.5 But upon domestic paper the statutes permitting protest are permissive, not compulsory.6 So the certificate of protest upon domestic paper not only may be contradicted, but may be added to, explained or assisted by parol evidence.7 Whatever facts the certificate fails to state may be added by the oral testimony of any witness competent and able to testify upon the point.8

3 Wilson v. Richards, 28 Minn. 337; Roberts v. Wold, 61 Minn. 291. Contra, Townsend v. Auld, 31 N. Y. Supp. 29. The court's statement is really dictum. There was evidence to show that the notice was never deposited in the postoffice. See also Young v. Pattison, 11 Rob. (La.) 7.

4 Garthwaite v. Seipe, 23 La. Ann. 218. Contra, Adams v. Wright, 14 Wis. 408.

5 Ocean Nat. Bank v. Williams, 102 Mass. 141: Carter v. Union Bank, 7 Humph. 548.

6 See cases in note 1, supra.

7 Dickerson v. Turner, 12 Ind. 223; Applegarth v. Aybott, 64 CaL 459.

8 Saul v. Brand, 1 La. Ann. 95. See Morris v. Foreman, 1 Dall. 193.