The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-11-17
THE COURT OF APPEALS.
sETEBAL INTERESTING OPINIONS
HANDED DOWN YEsrERDhY.
Judge Lewis In the Case OF the wssterp
Union Telegraph Company Against
Tyier-other Opinions.


of more or less interest were handed
down. The only one in which all the
judges Of the court agreed was that of
the Western Union Telegraph Company
against Tyler, in which Judge Lewis
affirmed the judgment of the lower
court, Judges Fauntleroy, Richardson,
Lacy and Hinton concurring in the opin-
ion.
The case came up on an error to judg-
ment OF the Circuit Court Of Allegha-
ny county, rendered March 18th, 1892,
In an action Of debt for a penalty, in
which j. o. Tyler was plaintiff. and The
Western Union Telegraph Company de-
PENDANT In the verdict judgment was
rendered FOR the plaintiff, to which judg-
ment the defendant company obtained
writ Of error The action was brought
against the Western Union Telegraph
Company 10 recover statutory penalty
10 the amount OF 800 for failure on the
part Of the company to deliver as prompt
~ as practicable a certain dispatch sent
from Asheviiie, n. G., 20 the plaintiH
at Clifton Forge Va. The action is based
upon section 1922 Of the Code, which is
as follows:
or telephone company, upon the arrival
Of the dispatch at the point 10 which
it is to be transmitted by said com
pany, to deliver it promptly to the per-
son 10 whom it is addressed, where the
regulations Of the company require such
delivery, or TO forward It promptly as
directed, when the same is to be for
warded For every failure TO deliver or
forward a dispatch as promptly as prac-
ticabe the company shall forfeit one
hundred dollars to the person sending
the dispatch, or to the person to whom
il was addressed"
AOu~pt,o Of Commerce.
The company denied the plaintiffs right
10 recover damages, on two grounds;
first, that the action, If maiutainable at
all, ought to have been made In the
name Of the Commonwealth; and sec
ondly. on the ground that section 1872
as quoted above. is repugnant TO that
clause Of the Constitution Of the United
States which gives to Congress the pow
er TO regulate commerce among the sew
eral States.
on the first point Judge Lewis is brief.
The court held that the Commonwealth
could not be in any way interested as
to the forfeiture Of the sum named, either
TO the person sending the dispatch, or
10 the person receiving il, and that 1t
was inconsistent with the intent Of the
LEGISLATURE 20 take the stand that this
action was not properly In the name OF
the plaintiff.
The second question as TO whether the
statute amounted 20 the regulation or
commerce was deliberately dealt with.
The opinion recites that IT has been ar
gucd with much earnestness that the
statute does amount 10 a regulation OF
Interstate commerce, but that the court Is
unable to come to that conclusion. The
statute Is not Oested upon principles
cited in opinions I'm the Supreme
Courts of other States, I'm a legal sense,
a burden upon or regulation Of com
merce. nor does it conflict with any act
of Congress. The opinion adds that II Is
simply an amendment or an enlargement
Of the local law. which is subjected to
modification by the Legislature
and which regulates the relative rights
and duties Of telegraph companies, and
persons doing business with them in this
state: with the additional clause that II
Is competent for Congress to prescribe
specific regulations touching foreign or
interstate commerce which would super
sede an conflicting local law even Indirect
ly affecting such commerce. Until such
action is taken by Congress, the court as
1892 is a valid enactment and the result
Of these views is that the judgment COM
planned of by the company must be af-
hrmed.
Messrs. Stiles & Holiday represented
the plaintiff in error. and Benjamin Ha-
den the defendant.
Dudley Gets No Damage.
In the case Of the Richmond and Dan
Vile Railroad Company against Dudley
the opinion was rendered by Judge Faun-
tleroy. This controversy came to the
Supreme Court from the Circuit Court Of
Culpeper county which tribunal had
rendered a verdict in favor Of David
Dudley against the company, for the
sum Of 5000 for injury received by the
plaintiff. a freight conductor In the en-
ployment of the defendant company by
being mashed between freight cars while
coupling them at Culpeper, on December
70 1889. After a careful review Of the
testimony In the case the court declares
that Dudley was the victim OF his own
negligence in disobeying the rules Of the
company, and that he cannot recover
damages. It's opinion holds that the YER
diet and judgment of the Culpeper court
are wholly erroneous, and accordingly
reverses and annuls them.
other cases were disposed OF as follows:
Danville and Western Railroad Vs.
Brown. from the Circuit Court OF
Henry: suit for damages in which plain
tiff recovered 1880. judgment of lower
court afIirmed-Judge Fauntleroy dis
senting.
Chase VS.. Miller. from the Circuit
Court OF Frederick; action OF lower
court in resembling contract, etc, re-
versed and cause remanded to circuit
Court, where plaintiff may amend his bilI
Judges Fauntleroy and Hinton dis
sentIng.
Osborne. trustee, and others, VS.. ThrocH-
morton, from the Circuit Court OF Lou
doun; affirmed-Judge Fauntleroy dis
sentng.
Clark against Commonwealth, further
argued by James p. Harrison, Esq, for
plaintiff in error and submitted
Welch against Commonwealth, argued
by John Nicely ESQ, for plaintiff In error
and Major Il. Taylor Scott for Common
wealth and submitted.
Benton against Commonwealth argued
by e. E. Garrett, Esq, for plainuh In
error and Major r. Taylor Scott for Com
monwealth.
MINGLED MELODY AND HUAOR
.,fandfd prooranme Rendered ut the