The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-02-01
WESTERN UNION OUT SIS.
The Company Have to Pay That for a
Wrongly sent Message.

The Company Have to Pay That for a
Wrongly sent Message.
Cunningham & Gibbs brought suit
against the Western Union Telegraph
Company yesterday, in Justice Sheftall's
court, to recover SIS damages, alleged to
have been incurred from the incorrect
transmission Of a telegram. William E.
Morrison represented Cunningham &
Gibbs, and w. S. Chisholm, Jr,
appeared for the company. Several
witnesses were sworn on both
sides. A heated argument by the counsel
followed, and Justice Steftall gave "a judg-
ment in favor of the plaintiff for the full
amount sued for. The message was sent
from here Oct. q by Mr.. Cunningham to
Bloom and Son, New Orleans, for sixty-one
barrels of rice, to be shipped to w. g. Nor
rel, Savannah. The plaintiffs alleged that
the message was written send 'B n
grade, and the operator sent it "B j"
grade. The difference in the grades and the
loss incurred from the shipment of the
wrong grade is placed at SO
-Four witnesses were put up by counsel
for the plaintiff, including Mr.. Cunning
ham, who testifies to the manner in which
the telegram was written. Mr. Morrel was
also put up, as was Mr.. Kerns, by whom
counsel for the plaintiff sought to establish
the grade of rice.
Tha defendant introduced Manager
Maxwell of the Western Union Telegraph
Office and the operator who sent the
message who testified that the writing was
not plain enough TO distinguish the az, 3"
and it rather resembled a "Jn than a
"Zn The counsel for thescompany held
that as the suit was based upon breach of
contract. and as the contract was the gist
of the action, the burden of proof fell upon
the plaintiff.
He held that the telegram in question
was no part of the evidence, and that, as
counsel on the other side had failed so far
to notify the company TO produce the mes
sage. it could not then be produced. Coun-
sci held that the company should have been
given the usual five days notice in which
to produce the message. and, as that time
had elapsed before the trial without notice
being served, it was too late to attempt to
bring in the telegram.
The magistrate over ruled this motion
and allowed the message to come in. MIR.
Chisholm also held that the firm suing was
not firm at the time the message was
sent. The firm was organized since October,
and further, that the bill of particulars OF
the plaintiff was incorrect and the damage
speculative. Upon these motions it was
sought to dismiss the suit, but they were
ruled out, and a judgment for the full
amount was given. Notice of appeal wal
made, and the case will be taken to the
superior court.
Referring to the contract or the company
and the sender of the message, MIR. Morri
son held that 1t did not amount to any
thing. The company could not limit itsel
to damages resulting from any error of the
company. The company, he said, refused
TO accept anything except it is writer
upon the company's blanks, and in this wa
it forces the sender into a contract from /
necessity Of having to send a message. He
produced authority showing that the SUI
preme court has decided that the contract
of the Western Union are not good in law