Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1871-04-05
Dc Law Of TsIerrnphIc MIstakes.

II Is remarkable that mistakes In
the transmission Of kilograms are moi
more frequent and serious than they
are, and the fact bears strong testt'
mony to the care and efficiency With
which our telegraphic lines are gem
orally managed. When errors occur,
however, they not unfrequently re-
I suit in litigation, and the legal decis-
ions TO which they give rise are Of
! great interest, on account Of the wide
I " extended and rapidly increasing
use OF the telegraph. A recent case
IN England, where the law OF rail-
ways and telegraphs has kept pace
with the same branch Of law in this
country, bears directly on some i'm
portant questions.
The plaintiffs were gun makers IN
London. The defendant was 9 gun
maker at Newcastle-upon-Iyne ana
in June last he wrote the plaintitts IS
follows: "Send sample SnidsF, with
sword-bayonet; forward immediate-
ly. 1 can fix an order for fifty, I
think, and it may lead 20 many large
orders. Can you do them at S5s net
cash on delivery, so as to secure the
ofder2 / shall have TO cut very fine.
and several will be in for it, The
plaintiffs sent them a sample rife
with this note: 1--WE have forward
ed you this day sample Snlder, with
bayonet. We cannot possibly do
them for less than 35s net cash. -
Soon after the following telegram,
which purported to come from the
defendant, was received by the plaln-
tlffs "Send by mail Immediately
the Snider rifles, same as pattern
Must be here IN the morning. Ship
sails them" They thereupOn ssut
fifty rifles to the defendant, who two
days afterward wrote them. express
ing his surprise at the receipt Of fifty
rifles when he had telegraphed for
but three. 1t proved that the clerk at
the telegraph Office hSd by mistake
transmitted the word tbe instead Of
tisree. which the defendant had writ
ten upon the message paper.
When. suit was brought IN the
Court Of Exchequer BY the plaintiffs
for the price Of the fifty rifles, the de-
fendant consented 70 pay for the three
rifles which he had actually ordered,
but the plaintiffs moved that g YER
dict might be entered in their favor
for the remaining forty-seyen rifles.
Upon the argument of this motion
il was contended in the behalf OF the I
plain tiffs that the Telegraph clerk was
che agent Of the defendant to trans l
NIT the message, who was therefore re- 1
sponsible for bis agents mistake. But |
the answer to this was, that although /
the managers Of the telegraph are |
agents for the transmission OF mes |
sageS they are agents to transmit |
them only In the terms in which the 1
senders deliver them, and their au- I
thority extends no further. The /
Court held this 10 be the Law, and the /
opinion was delivered by Chief Baron I
Kelly, who said that in consequence |
Of the mistake, for which the defend |
ant was not responsible, there was no /
contract between the parties, and con- |
sequentiy the plaintiffs were not en-
titled to recover for the forty-seVen /
Sniders sent in addition 10 those real |
IL ordered.
The question, Why not sue the tele-
graph company, since the error was |
theirs? at once suggests itself; and in |
this country, where corporations own /
and control the telegraph lines, the |
suggestion would be practicable. But |
In England last year the Government
the management Of the tele- !
graph, and all the lines were trans
ferred to the Post Ofiiee Department !
and according to the English law, the /
plaintiffs could not proceed against I
The Post ONCE so that the deeision,
legally correct, worked a .
certain hardship guaiust them in that I
hey suffered the consequences OF a
lault Of theirs, yet for which they 4
could not make any one peculiarly