Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-07

~ kr,,anlia uiih tha rlsi,icU mat she de-
llser u 10 ihe mall cafucr ihai 20 hihni
cause y ir1h-,hl"iol oi leagn' s,,.as.t az.
ia handsl 30 VI \. Sri'rt. To-. maA tfll,is
vhn nhpu !. u, any !, dclif',cl y th
transmission 20 The agent of the Err sele.
yrapl inid roipholr ,1iuians a. npfrne Win
Inc proper pflDr " NHs -riit HffI ne nv
of the Erie roinranf 10 oar An'Nn' ~
there b. liz niasfHncsr carried ~ ih@ cblff
Of the Defendant COMPANY thnr ~" hi"5hs
away ami delivered 10 The agent 81 ~ H"
frn1anl by MN Il wmi s,ni ser We mn "i
the Western tnion Telegraph touipdN! 70
SWnetwHief reaching ihc uiiitr - tue cum
pany nj ihal pulnt ~ II ~ y. M ShihiIhys
Jus T. icSs There was no special aIihhEe-
mrnt between the companies WIN feterthch
10 the transmission OF telrEfauH bttNe't
tncsc points. fhcy were, however. connect
Ing lines and Ia this case, ns 10 others.
wien messages W. re- sent over TIT mt or
one 10 be- forwarded over the llues OF the
other the two companies divided the charges
The message IN question was ftteif'd ~
the nlght operator aud when the day opera
tor came 10 the 0lnce at y O'Clock sunday,
July sih. he found It enclosed IN an .nyr-
lope, both the me.s1se anl ne enNeiefs
&. N, Taylor. Brins Informed that nv such
person ~ 4. VI. kyirr was known, bu. that
lhe message WAS probably Intended for u
envelope addressed 4. ". Taylor aud in-
sttucteI the messenger to sees Taylor ~
the Town sud deliver the message ON me
report ~ the boy that he could not nnd
1aylyr tho operator sent an office message
TO the agent 81 the Erlc company at Boeriie
Ia ihe effect that Taylor lived three miles
from Swrrtwatcf aud asking instructions
TO this the reply cninc about 10 u. 10. that
thr sender lived twenty-five mUeH IN the
country and directing tlnt The hicssaFe be
piuCrd la the pCHtOiiirt. WhrrrupOn the
pgrut at SwertWuter enclosed The message
IN n stamped envelope and handing II TO
the messenger directed MIN 10 again sesrch
for fnylut aud " he should fail 10 iind hlui
to mail the ulrKsnge Tie boy again look
I'd Tor Taylor but was unable TO mud him.
He failed, however, 10 mail the message
until y O'Clock Monday morning. July ..
IN the meantime Taylor had come 10 sweet
water uhOu, O'Clock D. m. sollcitOus 10
hear FROM llH son, who he had undtrntool
was sick. lie expected news 10y mail aud
waited untll the hour Of It's arrival about
u y, N. After that hour he procured his
mall and hearing nothing from his sol he
returned home whcreuhOuf KUN down on
Monday the nih day Of July, "A ncighbor
brought hini tie Telegram. lie len FOR Ken
dall county by The iirAt train leaving sweet.
water at O'Clock Tuesday morning, bul
III not reach his point Of destination until
Thursday morning, July i2tli hi, son In the
meantime having died on Tuesday morning
about IL O'Clock and having been buried
about shutdown Of that day on account OF
mental anguish from being deprived OF tue
consolation OF presence al MS sons funeral
me plaintiff recovered 4 verdict and Judg-
inpnt IN the sun Of $500,
Taylor resided beyond the delivery limits
Of the company 1T Sweetwntcr, which under
the rules or the company, were there CON
lNtui X unicu 2 he fuiuli ~ the company wnrrr
the addrcssec lived bcyold the delivery
limits the sending office should he unable
10 collect special charges copy VI the
message should be- matted to the addresses.
The petition alleges liability on two
Rrpun1a. I. That the Erie company for
Itself and Us agent Of the defendant con-
iuylrd for the iransiAlsson uf tllr message.
.. Ihat II the relation Of principal and agent
"a not exist bctwtcn the two 'onpanies
the defendant was nevertheless liable us Il
connecting company Tor the due aud faith
ful transmission OF the message
The dcfopdnnt'a. general demurrer was
properly Ovcrtulcd Under the plaintin's
allegations the defendant ~ company
connecting With the Erie company must be
held 10 have undertaken The prompt rang-
crcncr to the liabilities Of connecting ear
ricrs laH been by analogy applied In an its
lnllness To connecting telegraph companies.
'l5o, The liability Of tho defendant. how.
ever, wnA limited to the terms OF the con.
tract entered into with the Erie company.
u WIS not required at an extra expense TO
llself or ny special messenger TO deliver
lhr lelegfnn In the country three miles from
sweptwhtcr.
With reference To the duty Of delivery the
court charged the Juy nS follows; lyon
are instructed that " you lind from the
evidence In the ease thai r, A. Davis
acting Tor the benefit " plaintiff, H. NJ
Taylor, delivered to the Erie Telephone and
Telegraph company NJ tioefnr The message
aesgllbrd IN the petition TO be transmitted
paid the charges therefor aud thar thc Erir
Telephone ana Telegraph company trans.
United 10 San Antolllo aud Delivered Il
to the drfcnduur, the Western Union T.ic.
gram company, 10 be- srni hy Il from that
point To It's destination, Swpcfwutpr and |
thht the sui defendant company accepted
SUCH message for transmission and by ar !
tdngemeni between said telegraph com |
nhnics the defendant company wn. ia ~, |
relrc mart OF he charges thereon paid rs |
aforesaid ~ Boernc then II was the ,luty
~ the defendant company 10 transmit ami |
deliver HE same with reasonable speed and |
dluFcngci aud " you hnd the facts 50 10 be |
sage aud the receipt ihercor hy DEFENDANT |
company mud Won further find Tint tho do. |
irh1hnt company was guilty N negligence |
IN delivering gald mcssngr In pnlntIn. and |
Nou nfthgr ind that had there not beCn
snch nrEliscucc thr plnlhiln wonll have
heth able 10 have reached krndnlin In finir |
To pc pr'scni % the burial Of his son vnu |
VIII nnl q verdict IN favor " plaintin.''
u VIII be noted that Tits iustruciinn does 1
n0t llwlt the rcqulrcry of the town 81 |
SWvriWater. Tho plaintiffs petition com. |
plnlns VI the fallinr ~ the Unfen,I,ut Ia
deliver the nrfsugr tn him aud auonu ofbrr
matters charge. Thai he lived abouf three
lpilcH from snld town NJ Swcptwnlor ana
inc place W Ills residence was well kpoN,n
10 Nci~AllhiH operator aud agent and mos.
Nngr 10y ~ SweetNrtcr" nv defendant
complains W the instruction "ln Thai Il, |
tnls e. state whore the delivery sboulI he
made II further requested an lnsiruriion.
W. rrtMnl Of whlcn aasHAs M rrnr |
" lfANl announced the
proposition TINT the duty did nut devulva
upon the defendant To Lellver The messn,,e
~ the residence NJ tho nddrossee. Apnei.
lant We ihii l., was entitled 10 a chartn rn.
nolNing surh q statement OF the law under
ihr rr'- ~ MS rusp
". therefore, the action OF Tho rn,rt IA |
the defective lnptrnctinn granted ma II, |
withholding the proposition sugsrsted nv
ihe requested chnrEc was Ut nrobablr IN. |
Jury TO the dcfpniHnt the Judgment shoniJ
he reversed To this luuulry we cousc
uucnily nultrsS ourselves
Inc plninin testified ~ follows, ~ could
nave been present az his hurlni II Tho mos
snEr hnd been posted In tho pnstoincn ~ /
sNr.t wf''r Voft, Ht any lime brf,lrr darn
received the same on Sunday night ana coulI |
on sunday, July s. 1855, AZ 1 wonll hnve
lfii NNNrlNutrr on MonlaV mosuluu
tfalu JnlN ", ISIS ~ or about u orlork NJ |
N, anil by 50 doing could have reached |
lioerne on the evening or July 10, 1855 and |
then hired livery team aud reached i, a |
laws houSe hcrr iN"ndnlia IN time 10 have
seen my son buried" ' :" "'''
From other portions OF the record n is
extremely Questionable whether the iurv /
have conoutrrd with the nlaiutin in ms
conclusion, u IL uudlsputcd fnm the trstI.
mony elsewhere that had The plalntir lef, /
SMeetweier al O'Clock OH Monday morn.
ing, lnlN y, he could not have rcnrhrd
nucrne hetorc $50 on the evening OF Tues
deN July IN; his son was harisi |
ahog, sundown three miles from the home
or Mt, Davis, and not less than twenty !
inles lrW the town NJ ioprne. II Il ~
least questionable whether tho iurv ,y,,,lt L
nave believed the plnNutiN could, wftbio lin |