The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-05-24
Liabilities OF Telegraph Companies.

Liabilities OF Telegraph Companies.
We gave brief synopsis of the important judi
cial decision in our News Summary a few days
ago, and now present the opinion of the Court in
full.
The following decision was rendered in tho case
Of JOHN WANN us. The Western Telegraph Com
pany, in the Supreme Court of Missouri, March
term, 1866:
OPINION THE COURT.
This was an action instituted, to recover DANA
ges for alleged carelessness OF the Western Union
TELEGRAPH Company in transmitting dispatch for
dispatch, as sent by plaintiff to his correspondent
in New York, ordered them to ship to him at St.
Louis certain quantities of salt by "sail,' and
when it reached New York and was delivered it
substituted for tho word sai' in tue original dis
patohs; Accordingly large proportion of the salt
lake, rs was originally intended by the dispatch
The shipping by railroad was much more expen-
sive than by water, and the action was brought to
recover the difference between the two modes of
transportation. A judgment rendered in the
Court below for the plaintiff for the sum of one
thousand and eighty-fve dollars and forty -four
brought here by appeal
The defendant reaists the recovery on the ground
following conditions, which, it appears, plaintiff
had knowledge of:
"TEnMs AND CONDITIONS ON WHICH MESSAGES ARE
RECEIVED DY THE COMPANY FOR TRANSMISSION,
The public are notified that, in order to guard
against mistakes in tho transmission of messages
every message OF Importance oughtt to be repeated
to be received to the station from which it is orIgi
nally sent. Half the usual price for transmission
will be charged for repeating the message; and,
precaution to insure correctness it will not be re-
sponsible for mistakes delays in the transmits
sion or delivery OF repea ated messages beyond an
amount exceeding five hundred times the amount
paid for sending the message, nor will it be re-
sponsble for mistakes or delays in the transmis-
sion of repeated messages, from whatever cause
they may arise, nor from delay arising from inter
ruptiops in the workings OF it's telegrnphs, nor
from any mistakes or omissions OF any other COM
pany, over whose lines the message is to be sent
to reach the place Of its destination. All messag
will hereafter be received by this company for
transmission subject to the above conditions"
The message was not ordered to be repeated,
Our statute under which the company is incor-
porated declares that it shall be the duty Of the
company, "on payment or tender OF the usual
charge, according to this regulations OF the COM
ty and good faith, in theF order of time in which
they are received, DC. And such companies arc
made liable for special damages occasioDed by tho
failure or negligence OF their operatives or ser
wants in receiving, copying, transmitting or de-
livering dispatches. r. Rev. Stat, 1855, p 1921
y. 3. 6-6. The Court has never before been
called On to construe this statute, and the trans
mltting and communicating intelligence by
means of the electic telegraph being of compare
lively lively i recent invention, but few adludications
telegraph companies. In California the Court
seems to have applied the doctrine governing tho
liability OF common carriers to telegraph compa-
nies. But in the California case, as well as the
Maryland case, to which reference has been made,
there was not merely negligence, but an entire
omission on the part Of the operators OF the COM
panies to perform their duties
In the former, the dispatch was not sent until
the gay after 1t WAS received, in consequence of
which delay the plaintiff lost deut; in the latter
tne oispatch was forgotten, and was not sent at
All. But tho Maryland Court repudiates tho doc
.;n .flne tnat telegraph company is common car
rler ana assumes that II is bailee, and that par
y sendlng messages by telegraph, knowing that
the engagemr rnts OF the company are controlled
by certain rules and regulations, engrarts them in
contract OF baiiment, and is bound by them; and
that rnies exemping the company from liability
Tor the non-transmission and non delivery OF uure-
peated messages do not apply to a case where no
effort is msdo by the company Or it's agents 10 put
| u m assago on it's transit. = - -
In the Kentucky case tho Telegraph Company
had published notice 10 the precise Language usoiI
6y the defendant here and copied in this opinion.
The plaintiff sent message over its lines without
ordering 1t to be repeated, or paying for having
| the same done. A mistake occurred In its trans.
mission whereby he lost one hundred dollars. The
Court held that the condition was reasonable and
the defendant was notlable. The case Of NJ An.
drew us the Electric Telegraph Company "a Conn.
Bench 81 Is In point, and is ably reasoned. The
| statute 16 and IL Victoria ennbodies o provision
| eimilar to ours In regard TO telegraph companies
and the company there had given notice of which
the ono here is almost an identical Transcript
The 0laintiE