Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-14

I NHNM rNaMe wore ~ uNuua they MHIN
abandoned and Che parents Especially The
mother suffered keen anguish Oh acrount
/ ~ fle uncertainty - to the fate ~ the
bpiy 1lr latter meanwhile hal been ear
ried 10 SAN Antonio thence 20 l!osenlteTE
| Urn ton fhrrrt 10 CiehrrnC and 80 reached
Paris uh1rt sruiown Urt iNsl 40 WIS
AZ once carried 90 the house ~ - r. Fui-
| ier au1 On arrouni % thr advanced state VI
dead was bold and ~ was Immediately IN
| terrtrl after uiEhf-fIN. d. was delayed about
| snd the ruute ly which if was carried was
nya or six luulrsd miles longer than the
route which bad been aErret upon.
The amount sciuaily expended by r. a
brothers currse to Paris was x3j iicniEcd
Before making the contract:
Fifty dollars Tor emb1lmlug tho hoiF;
| So ~ rasket and boz Sl7.5j Tor preparing
| corpse Tor shiument. Si2 Tor railroad fare
! FROM Fort Worth io Phoenix si25O personal
expenses. $40 for telegrauis
Az THE fiue ~ The contract:
Nuoiy-oae dollars and forty cents express
charges.
AMER ihn contract
Slrfy-sx dollars and thirty-dve cents for
travelling eEppus.e. personal expense and
/ t-lvgraphiug aiuug ne r0urr
90 lldiuun. ihc father. -. 7. Fuller esu-
matted the amount expended by him for
| Telegram. at So. u do,s not clearly ui-
peat iu what immediate connection gil OF
those fHrtraWs were scout. some uf the
| ldnd. where o appears tie wife ~ the de-
u appear. from the Testimony introduced
br the defrulani i.a. the lines ~ commuid-
Gallon " the Wells. Fargo \ Gus
rirrDss were VIA Ei Iaso and san Antonio
anil ihe rIuic along which the corpse was
tskru. through r. A. Fuller was Ignorant
N ibis iavf. u further appears That The
Defendant and Tire Pacific Express company
UUuurrf.li as express lilies af ~ plsu and
that they were daily exchanging business.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
J. We overdue appellant contention that
! 90 sflHl end urltd anguish ~ -. J. lui-
iar Iui Dos wife Flora arr Iut elements of
damage as should be- considered by jury
as incident fu fh" breach % the Cuuir,et
alleged iN the Wai1Nu iu OOH, case. The
is ruiF unioiucl siike us ihr ususc- 81
H'uisui society hy thr suggestions uf tito
m1mn heart ul ~ the prpeupi. ui Christi
discharge ibis du'y hy the SGT ur omission
OF another in fiNng Goo comply 1ith its cun-
iruri Dr. 'o Toe deprived 0f lhc solitary solace
lrfi ln many iusiu rrs 90 borrowed humguiiy.
SUCH deprivation IS naturally accompanied
hF DO" kruu--t anguish which must be- deem
cd the Immediate aud rpNlmut- result 81
me urt or omission complained ". Tile
consequent damages ARE tD Dee considered as
within ihe contemplation nt The parties m
entering into The contract subsequently,
Violated stuart rs. Telegraph company,
ID Texas. 5sl: Telegraph company VS.
Rroeschp ~ Texas "a: lIal. vs. Homer
~ Texas. ~: Telegraph company. IS. Car
ter, ~ s. w. Rep. G~S
.. W. overEue iho more wdghiy contcn-
ton ~ appellant that the rarul agreement
BY and between r. A. Fnllcr aud the agent
Grepuipuf on which this suit rs founded
and on which recovery was had Is mRdmls.
Ntlc berauo DO clntrudicts the terms of
the receipt relied upon hy defendant
II Us Insisted that this Instrument Il more
ihan mere receipt: inst u Is contract
or hlll or ladiug and that by itS terms n
u ttf
By The defendants own lucs Of cummunl-
cation ana that these terms are necessarily
taxing in tfnnsnort ~ plaintiff contends
since snCh route was NOT over the drfCh-
duu'S lirr uf communication.
II this Instrument IL 10 hc considered as
DIV Dos terms thc carrier ln This instance
CONTINUED cor Euu,h to ruuinr the cu,tiag.
Of The corpse 60 iis own lines The Ian
gunEe by which d Is commended TINT this
usult wyS effected Is us follows. -
Which We undertake 10 forward to me.
polai nearest destination reached hy this
Wells Iaiuo q t'u. shall NOT I'D.
htlt liable rur loss on damage except us
fnrwurdrrs only, within their own lines Of
communication nor for dcfault
nrglprj ur iulshap ON the part OF any ION.
Meeting or intermediate Nnc. individual
corporation or association 10 whom said
property may hr transferred for further
Ne Do not lutte Arct this uumagr as
either literally ur substantially indicating
that thc corpse was necessarily 10 be- taken
over l.. defendants own lines ~ ruuimuui.
cation u certainly expresses the probable
u-D ut connecting lines ur the privilege 90
Use them aud % thus negatives or excludes
HE idea OF the absolute or exclusive use of
The carriers own Hines. The use ~ the
word forward Itself lmpurt4 amhigty
to lhc Instrument because THIS word uc.
mepnlng nr The Wurl "Svud'' on rs extended
10 th' wilder significance " the word Gear
rA.' Hutch Carr. SECTIONS lid l5I. The
,lrt,nnlslan'gs' va ne iiSli Of which such an
themselves exist IN pnrol. rhc Instrument
in question u.s. IN our opinion itself au-
hlguuus. and as. 10y lis terms. Il does mol
rm'lihr the transportation or forwarding uf
Tie corpse to the defendants own line,
W. do not think that the Testimony ~ Mr.
Fuller showing that the contract nr the
THE most dircrt ami prariicnllc route. rhn.
irudtrird ur varied the instrument. THE ties.
tlmony rather explained H. Il renewed Tho
ambiguity and WAS hence admissible Tile
Wtnlprcr 81 Federal HWurtpr. 2GO
The two special Instructions ask,si iu This
connection hy the defendant wcr correctly
friuSrh because tlvy are prcihutsl npnn
The tllNnunus asSmptldu That tha r,rthh
or hill Of lulug contains The express ruuil
tlun That lhr corpse was to Doe carried over
g. We sustain appellants c0utcutIon INN
there Is error m the Judgment lu so fnr us
uuior thc courts instruction II awards
~ A. Fuller and hts Gather ss shawn i1
our conclusions 81 fact in thc mnttcr Of
th" transportation Of thc corpse The owl.
dcuce Shows TINT the sums 40 used Jo MI
eXvrel seN The money thus txuund,.l MAS
applied iu oar oululun without reference, tn
the contract az shipment. or 10 Doe IuUl,,
accurate, ~ Wunld have been pXprulisI h,Il
10 surh clnttnci mpn ututlc cxrrpt nst la
the sum of Nll 40 express charges and the
amount Tor kilograms afterwards sent Ina
Inquiry ahOut the rnrpsp Save as to tb,s,,
Helms n rs Heat thar THE suhlS pxWo6,b,l
cannot De- deemed tO have been within a.,
contemplation ~ HE parties al the tlnc
of the contract and hence cannot he re,,Is--
crWl, Hntch. Carr srvtinn OTs II A a.
purpose NJ HE cnntruc; iid nor wholly I'm
We are unable t0 nppurlion the nn,onnt
pail az express charges which aiu,Il :,
recovered similar uncnrtum(v nihalns hs
to the sum expended mr. trlory,u,e rr.
evidences does not dlslnsc whit pr,rIs,.
amount was nSel u inquirng for me WHORE.
ah0nts ~ thr fo'N
q Except as 90 tho sum ~ s2ah NO et,
uualhp 90 hold the yeplirt eXc,,..Ir,. VIZ
smart vs. lc'eguph company Hl TWAS
NNh q verdict awarding damages ip thn
sum nt stNm tor MENTAL anguish unlunp
from me failure to deliver teiperan WAS
improved hy oar supreme pUulg III MA t,y
recent casfs decided hv MS az tbn ~. 1870 n.y.
compuny 81 Evans and pinor resn., ti,.'i'.A
following Telegraph company H. if,,,i'tt5'
~ Texas. 5hi. We held vpfdl.ts ct,,.ti.
NNRh 10 hF excessive Ia thDsc $500 ",hs
injury lnvolrcd rhncprupd onlr np, t.,,s..,,t.
hrre ihrre are two, Tho facts aleu- /. XIV
iailNl with .renrencp rs ihe tr.rt,.i ,t
W tho hniE ~ tie deraa1f.t 49, 'Ni ~" /