Case ID: sc_89/html/0009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice PIydricic.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

7906
    PATTERSON v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
    “Case”. — Evidence.—Where the exhibits are not printed in the “case” this Court cannot say there was error in admitting them or that they were prejudicial, and all the evidence not being before the Court it cannot say there was no evidence of negligence or of damages.
    Before Watts, J., Hampton, April, 1910.
    Affirmed.
    Action by James M. Patterson against Western Union Telegraph Company in court of W. R. Brabham, magistrate. From order affirming judgment of magistrate, defendant appeals.
    
      
      Mr. B. B. Warren, for appellant,
    cites: Measure of damages: 71 S. C. 29.
    
      Mr. Jas. M. Patterson, contra,
    cites: Issue of fact supported by any evidence is not reviewable here: 85 S. C. 196. D.elay in delivery presumes negligence: 77 S. C. 404.
    May 9, 1911.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered'by

Mr. Justice PIydricic.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant in the court of a magistrate for $35 damages caused by negligent delay in the transmission and delivery of a telegram. On appeal to the Circuit Court the judgment was affirmed.

The first two exceptions assign error in the admission of a letter and two service messages, and the last two on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence or of damages.

The record is very defective. It shows that a number of letters and telegrams were admitted in evidence and considered by the magistrate and Circuit Court, but not one of them is printed in the “Case.” Without knowing the contents of an exhibit, we cannot say whether there was error in admitting it, or, if so, whether it was prejudicial. And as it appears that all the evidence is not before us, we cannot say there was no evidence of negligence or of damages.

Appeal dismissed.