Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1904-05-25

Al all tlm0S between FEBRUARY II,
and February %, 1895, inclusive, the
said Thomas J. Barnes had his resi-.
dence in said town of Lovelock and
within 800 yards of defendants tele-
graph Office. Had the defendant exer-
cised only slight diligence, said tele-
gram could have been delivered to
the said Thomas ]. Barnes on the nine
teenth day of February, 1895. Had
said telegram been so delivered Will
liam Barnes could and would have re-
ceived the ticket asked for in his
telegram on the goth day of February.
by reason of defendants negligent
failure to deliver said telegram, plain
tiff suffered damages in the sum Of
$400."
Appellant makes various assign
ments of error. but three only seem
to be relied upon in the briefs of its
counsel: Cd Insufficiency Of the evil
dence to justify the findings of fact
and conclusions of law; ca Contri-
butory negligence on the part of plain
TIL; and 60 remoteness of the dam.
ages.
On the first point, to-wit, the insult
cheney of the evidence to sustain the
findings and conclusion, it is deemed
unnecessary to go into a minute analy-
sis of the evidence given at the trial
The most that can be claimed by the
appellant is that the evidence is con.
flicting; and when such is the case,
the rule Of this court has long been
that the findings Of fact by the trial
court will not be disturbed.
On the second point, to-wit, contri.
butory negligence on the part Of the
plaintiff, counsel for appellant state
no act of the plaintiff that is by them
claimed to be of the nature of con
tributory negligence. On the contrary
the acts that are claimed by them to
be Of the nature Of contributory negli
gence are the acts of two other per
sons. Under the heading in the brief
"contributory negligence" counsel say
eff there was any negligence about
it, T. J. Barnes, mot the plaintiff Will
liam Barnes,] and Mrs. Addingtor
were the negligent parties" No show
ing whatever is made to connect the
plaintiff, William Barnes. with the al
legged negligent acts Of T. J. Barnes
and Mrs. Addington. In such case
even if the acts of T. ]. Barnes an
Mrs. Arlington were conceded to bs
negligent, it could not avail the de
PENDANT.
On the third point, to-wit, remote
ness of damages, it perhaps may D,
we'll to restate the facts in more com
pact form thus
BY reason of the negligence of de
fandant in not delivering the tele
gram in proper time, the plaintiff
a minor, of nineteen years of age wa.
placed in Ogden 400 miles distan
from his home at Lovelock, Nevada
with only $1.25 in his pocket Unde
such circumstances. what was the nat
ural and proper thing for such mino
to do? Upon the correct answer I,
this question, it would seem, the sc
luton of the matter in controversy d.
ponds. AS an illustrative analogy, on
ct least somewhat applicable to tn
situation here disclosed, suppose tn
railway company had contracted wit
plaintiff to take him to Lovelock, bu
had negligentlv broken its contrac
and left him at Ogden. what would b
the natural and proper thing for III
llajntiff to do? and what damage
would that company be responsible I
him for? Could it be possible that !,
responsibility in damages would en-
with the price paid for railway tick:
and hotel bills while the 1925 Taste
and wages during the same time
Plaintiff could not remain in Ogdel
because, after the few hours that tn
CONTINUED On Third Page.)