Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-07
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VRclNsAN-PiL
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of interest to
Our People.
GEORGIA r. CO. ". GouEDY.
Supreme Court of Georgia,
JULY q 1900

DuPieuie 'oOuTI OIL Georgia,
July Il. 1900.
"A RAILWAY COMPANY CANNOT
DEFEND A SUIT FOR WAGES
DUE AN EMPLOYEE BY SHOW
ING THAT IT HAD BEEN DAM
AGED BY A MISTAKE MADE BY
HIM.
merchant in Union, S. c., ordered
car load OF corn from dealer in
NASHVILLE, Tenn. 1t was shipped from
Nashville and arrived i'll Atlanta, Ga,
TO be forwarded by the Georgia Rail-
road Company to Union. Werner was
the local agent of the company in At
lanta. Gouedy was employed by the
company as NVerner'S billing clerk, and
charged with the duty of rebilling cars
OF this description to their destination.
In rebilling this particular car, Gouedy
marked it for Marion, $. G. When it
arrived at that place there was no con-
siSnee to receive it. 1t was finally trac-,
ed and sent to Union, its original des-
tination, but the consignee refused to
accept it because of the DELAY in deliv
cry. The car was then sent to Green
vile. S. c., and sold by the railroad
company at Il loss. The amount of the
loss on the corn and the additional
freight charges incurred by reason OF
the error in shipping, were divided
among the various railroad companies
over whose lines the corn Fad passed,
the amount assessed against the GeOr
gia Railroad Company being $3.50. This
amount the company charged to the To-
cal agent, Werner, whom 1t held re-
sponsible. He, in turn, charged 1T to
tiouedy, and when the paymaStcr came
TO Atlanta to pay off the employees of
the company the payroll showed that
$40 of Gouedy's wages had been marked
as stopped" Subsequently similar
amounts were deducted from his wages,
the amounts being given to Werner by
the paymaStcr, until the amount of
SIS. 90 had been deducted from Gouedys
wages on this account. Gouedy upon
each occasion signed the payy-roli, thus
receipting in full for all demands, but
he protested to the paymaster against
the deductions from his salary assign
ing MS his reasons that he had not been
negligent in rebilling the car. because
the destination OF the car, as originally
written. was as easily read Marion"
as "Union.' and that he had never
agreed for Werner to stop - part
of his wages on account OF this car The
paymaster replied that he had nothing
to do with the matter; that Gouedy
must appeal TO the officials of the com
pany; that. so far as he (the paymaS-
teri was concerned. Gouedv must take
the amount offered him, or else get
nothing C;oucdy was finally dismissed.
and brought suit in II Justices court
for the balance due him on account of
wages. The magistrate gave judy
ment in his favor. and the company ap-
pealcd to the superior court, Where up
on the trial the jury returned verdict
In his favor \ motion for n new trial
was made and overruled, and the COM
pany excepted.
The court says:
II was contended by the counsel for
.hc plaintiff in error that by reason of
the negligence of Gouedy, It's servant,
II lost SIS 90. and that it had n right to
deduct this amount from his wages.
Even il the company had power TO DO
this. the record discloscS that ii did
not do so, but charged the loss to Wer-
ner, who was responsible. under the
rules of the company, and then stopped
Goucdy's wages simply for the purpose
of reimbursng Werner. From the re-
cord it would appear that the company
had been paid by Werner for the loss,
and its action in Withholding from
Gouedy these various amounts made 1t
mere collecting agent for Werner.
Gouedy had never been notified. either
by Werner or by the company, that
these amounts were to be deducted.
He had never agreed that the deduc-
ton should be made; nor does the re-
cord disclose that there was any rule
Of the company. agreed to by Gouedy
or known TO him, authorizing such n
procedure. If the company had adopted
rule or regulation to the effect that
the amount of any loss occasoned by
the negligence OF an employee should
be charged to him, and Gouedy had
expressly agreed to the rule, the case
might be different. But as no such rule
was shown. and no agreement of
Gouedy TO such an arrangement, the
company was clearly without authority
to make the deduction. By the action
taken, Gouedy was fined for negligence.
without his having any opportunity to
make defense, and, indeed, without his
knowing anything OF the charge OF
negligence imputed to him. Affirmed.