Case Name: The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Edwards
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1895-04-08
Citations: 96 Ga. 757
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Edwards.
Judges: By two Justices.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Edwards.
April 8, 1895.
By two Justices.
Brought forward from the last term.
Action for penalty. Before Judge Janes. Douglas superior court. November term, 1893.
The evidence for plaintiff' was: He delivered to the agent of defendant at Douglasville, Gra., a telegram to Price Edwards at Buchanan, Gra., on July 22, 1892, .at 11 A. m., and paid the agent the charges for transmission. Edwards, the addressee of the message in question, was in Buchanan, Gra., attending court at the time. He was then living in Tennessee, but was well known to almost every person in Buchanan. He was intimately acquainted with the agent there, and was boarding at the same hotel with him on July 22d. He never received the message. It was the custom of defendant there, and had long been, to deliver messages to non-residents and others, especially during the terms of the court, when many attorneys and others were in attendance on the court. During the terms defendant employed a message boy to deliver messages, and Edwards had him self received such messages and had seen them delivered to the judge and others.

Opinion:
Lumpkin, J.
According to the principle ruled by this court in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Timmons, 93 Ga. 345, the telegraph company, under the facts disclosed by the record and set forth in the reporter's statement, was liable for the statutory penalty, and there was no error in denying a new trial. Judgment affirmed.
After verdict for plaintiff, defendant moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and because the court erred in charging: "If defendant delivered a message to any non-resident at Buchanan, attending court at that time, it would be bound to deliver messages to other non-residents under like circumstances and conditions. The law requires it to serve the public impartially; it is as much bound to deliver to one person as another." The motion was overruled.
Dorsey, Brewster & Howell and Malvern Hill, for plaintiff in error.
Edwards & Edwards, contra.