Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-05
THE SUPREME COURT.
CASE AS TO THE DELIVERY OF A
TELEGRAM DECIDED.
A YOUNG LADY GETS DAMAGES.
She Was Badly Hurt While Out
Driving Upon the streets If Nor
foik-Exfent OF Resolution of n
City Councii-Other Matters.

The most Interesting case decided I'm
the Supreme Court Of Appeals yesterday
was that Of the Western Union Tele-
graph Company against Powell. This
was an action against the telegraph
company for failure to send and deliver
a message. The case came TO the Court
OF Appeals upon the decision by the
lower court of two demurrerS-one
based upon section 1921 Of the Code Of
Virginia, as to the sending of a mes
sage, and the other upon 1892, as to the
delivery Of a message. The principal
questions involved were technical. But
in conclusion. the Court decides in favor
of the defendant in error by saying:
1.-THE record does not show that the
defendant in any way restricted it's
general liability for the service which
it undertook to render. and in the alb
sence of such contract, it cannot rely
upon the conditions Of the message
blank, upon which was written the mes
sage delivered to the telegraph company
for transmission. The plaintiff did not
sign that blank, nor did he authorize
any one else TO do so for him.
THE facts certified show that the
message sent from Matthews Courthouse
TO Richmond, Va, was transmitted over
the line of the Tidewater Telephone
Company, as well as over the line OF
the defendant company. and that the
mistake in the address, which was made
i'm its transmission. occurred before ?.
was delivered for Transmission TO the
defendant company. There is nothing In
the record TO show that the defendant
company did not transmit the message
as received by it faithfully and impair
TALLY and as promptly and practicable
TO Richmond, the point TO which It was
TO be transmitted The plaintiff, having
failed to prove the case made in the
first count in the declaration, and the
second count not being sufficient. as we
have seen, to sustain a recovery. the
judgment OF the lower court must be
reversed the demurrer to the second
count of the declaration sustained, and
the cause remanded to the lower court.
with leave to the plaintiff to amend his
declaration If he be so advised"
The decision in this case was rem
dered by Judge Buchanan.
DAMAGES FOR A YOUNG LADY.
The next interesting case decided in
the Court of Appeals yesterday was that
Of the city of Norfolk against Johnokin,
i'm which the verdict Of the jury in the
Corporation Court of the city of Nor
folk, was affirmed. This case was
originally brought by Miss Johno-
kin for damages sustained by her
in being thrown from dog
cart by an obstacle in one of the streets
of that city. The young lady was out
driving with a young gentleman friend.
4ft1rr oil " "a
red lamp had been stationed the evening
before. saw that there was no signal up,
and the young folks drove over the OBJ
stacle. and Miss Johnokin was thrown
from the vehicle and very badly injured.
Her wounds were not at first serious.
but they proved very serious in their
consequences The jury in the lower
court gave Miss Johnokin a verdict Of
5000, which was appealed from, but the
Supreme Court decides that the damages.
as alleged, were not excessive. and af-
firms the judgment of the Corporation
Court.
CASE OF A RAISED CHECK.
In the case of the National Bank Of
Virginia against w. O. Noting, the
opinion was handed down by Judge
George NJ. Harrison.
The case came from the Richmond
City Circuit Court, and is. in substance,
as follows: A check was presented at
the bank and the money drawn. and
It was learned that the
figures on the check had been changed
so as to raise the amount from so to
500.
The bank sued for the difference, but
failed to recover it. and the case came
on TO the Supreme Court, and the judg-
ment of the court below is affirmed.
The opinion says: at follows, as be-
tween the bank and the dspositor, that
a payment by the bank is the loss of the
bank and such is the unquestionabe
rule, except in those instances wherein
the negligence or laches of the drawer
OF the check has laid the foundation for
the error of the bank.
"The depositor is only charged with the
duty of ordinary diligence and care. In
the case at bar IT is not pretended that
there was any negligence in drawing
the check"
THE MINOR OPINIONS.
The case Of Ross Administrator
against Hughes's Administrator, and
others, from the Gloucester Circuit Court,
was one involving some land transac-
tions, in which the judgment of the lower
court was affirmed
The controversy Of the city of Norfolk
against Pollard for the recovery of $3.50.
for services rendered in auctioning off
the stalls of the market-houses of that
city, was another case which was decided
yesterday The opinion was handed
down By Judge Rely, and the question
involved was simply whether or not a
resolution, passed by the City Council,
directing the Tax-Collector to put up
the stalls of the market for rent at auc-
ton. empowered him TO employ an auc-
tioneer. and hold the city liable for his
pay. The Court of Appeals held that
the resolution in order to have done
this. should have made an appropriation
for this purpose, and reverses the judg-
ment of the Corporation Court of Norfolk
city.
OTHER MATTERS DISPOSED OF.
In the case Of Wallace VS.. the City Of
Richmond. a petition 10 hear was re-
fused yesterday. In this case the plaintiff
sues the city for whiskey lost at the time
Of the evacuation.
In the case of Staples and wife VS.. the
Savings Bank of Richmond, decided by
the Circuit Court of Richmond, the APP
peal was refused
Mechanism and others VS.. Roanoke
iron Company Hastings Court city of
Roanoke. Appeal allowed. Bond $3.50.
Penn and others VS.. Hearon for. etc,
Circuit Court of Washington. Appeal |
md supersedeas. Bond 500.
Max Grief vs.. Norfolk and Western ,
Railroad Company. Writ OF error and !
Bond $500.
Commonwealth VS.. Pryor Circuit Court |
IF Montgomery. Wri, of error and super
sedeas awarded.
Fitzmoyer and others vs.. Holsinger, !
Circuit Court of Shenandoah county. |
Writ of error and supersedeas awarded. |
Bond 81 COO
jackson vs.. Jackson. Circuit Court OF |
Appeal refused.
Keister and others VS.. Pulaski Land |
md lmpro, ement Company, circuit
Court of Pulaski. Appeal and superse-
leas refused.
RULER W. Conrad. Petition to rehear
OIL