Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-02-06
IT WAS SENT TWICE.
.cAse DECIDED IN WHICH A DUpLI-
,c.Tr MESSAGE CAUSED LITIGATION.
judgement Of the Circuit Court AZ
ormed--A Question Of Partnership
Other Decisions.

,.4-o Lewis yesterday delivered the
.':a;cn ~ the supreme Court of Appeals
~ case Of the Western Union Tele-
~ Company against the Virginia Paper
' r.,,, decision Of the Circuit Court Of this
,bcre a verdict for 5000 was gwen in
80 4 the paper company, was affirmed.
-ho facts If the case as stated in the
.,.r;,n are rs follows;
me virginia Paper Company being a
..'-,ter Of the Union Straw Board Asso-
..,o received a telegram lDsd the West:
.-Iri0n from the general manager OF
e." 10 while in session in Toledo,
49,, n 1883. which read: Price adj
I,-1 =, go; takes effect Immediately"
n an interval Of four hours) the
Raw a second message came To hand
an was as follows; ~
@-re.alutiOn advancing price resclnded.
-. remain as before
|n..~t midnight Of the same day Mr..
81, N Montague. president Of the Viz
f p,r,r COMPANY. was aroused at his
l..fs,rc hy messenger from the tele-
l...f .,mpany, who brought the follow
i- PES advanced 20 seventy dollars;
,.t's,fect immediately"
ApurI1CGTK MESSAGE.
nv .ho Strength OF this last message tho
,----s Paper Company advanced straw
49,. A. so. refusing a number Of orders
,..t.0.8 pr,ce. the profits on which would
i.v. l.eu ~i69.61
f.w DAYS IL was learned that there
,tf..r u1 advance ia straw boards, and
a,fl. ast message sent was duplicate
Lind from the last relay station-Balti-
and was intended 20 have been kept
-s He. On Tile, the original having
ga ..... SAD that through a mistake il
,...... .lt as % regular message.
I.I.r H.. case was tried ID the City Cir
I...f ~ Richmond the telegraph
..-... claimed that the plaintiffs were
g cnutrlbutOry negligence and
-'1 taye noticed that the last message
ft,.i The preceding day. A verdict
!-s.0v.s gwen and both sides took an
800. the telegraph company because
,'v.r.e.iel 90 the verdict entirely, and
,.-fa- company because they thought
r..l l.' 600 small.
-!-. lav dlssented. Judges Hinton
OIL. Eul'eroy concurred, and Judge
-.,. stated that Judge Richardson, who
absent, also concurred.
COULD NOT PROVE 1T.
u.Crrru Court Of Danville was sus-
.-.f.- taecase If Motley against Frank.
IF I-.,A. who did business a. the Frank
If.., Company, made IN assignment
t...rltr2. 1851. Among the creditors in
81. .a..ri class was his mother for al
.r- excess Of $4,000. 4. III. Motley
e.. attacked the deed a. fraudulent, and
r.~.i ,.st Mrs. Frank was a member ~
,.t-... ana an Injunction was granted re-
..-,..- che HAymcut of the money to
plaintiffs never proved their case.
cd .i..- waiting fourteen months the
- rl.r,i the dissolution of the in
-. ard the payment Of the money TO
,-, ira.k. Judge FauntlerOy delivered
r. opinion. affirming the decree OF the
t-~ below.
oIHER CASES.
U,-r.r against Vaughan. From the
C-.tC MT OF Amelia county. Reversed,
-.t-s Iary delivering the opinion.
Vernon selust Farmer. From the Cir
I'll. Cont II Pittsylyania. Affirmed,
-.-. HINTON delivering the opinion.
f.r,u AGAINST Bowen. From the Circuit
C.-. ., Freier ksburg. Affirmed, Judge
L.r delivering the opinion.
H.-rf against Wilkinson. From the
Craft Cont NJ Wythe county. Affirmed,
,.!ra arg delivering the opinion.
Elmnl nd Danville Railroad Com
III, against HisdOn. Rehearing denied.
5.,c against Commonwealth. Dis
E,..d
Isse against Belvin. Writ Of error and
r..-eaIs allowed TO a judgment of the
C,.u Court 4 city Of Richmond on the
l'a November 1880.
ie.r.ui and Danville Railroad Com
u-rabls. PlcklesimeT. Passed 10 March
t-
,-N Hughes and FLOYD Hughes. Esqs.,
.1s,,.l.lt and Judge l.. Il. Watts for