Jones v. Western Union Tel. Co

• Decision Date: 18 September 1906
• Citation: 55 S.E. 318,75 S.C. 208
• Parties: JONES . v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

55 S.E. 318

75 S.C. 208

JONES .

v.WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Sept. 18, 1906.

1. Telegraphs—Failure to Deliver Telegram.

In an action for failing to deliver a telegram, plaintiff can show that defendant had notice from him ot the purpose of the message from its terms, in connection with information given by him to its agent.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 45, Cent Dig. Telegraphs and Telephones, § 62.]

2. Appeal—Harmless Error.

Admission of evidence wholly irrelevant, but not prejudicial, is not ground for reversal.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 4153, 4154.]

3. Telegraphs—Failure to Deliver Telegram.

In an action for failure to deliver a telegram, evidence that the message was promptly transmitted to defendant's office at the place named, but could not be delivered over a telephone as directed because of a defect in the line, shows no wanton disregard by defendant of its duty.

4. Same—Damages.

In an action for failure to deliver a telegram, that plaintiff remained in a livery stable for four hours exposed to the cold was not the actual result of such failure, and the only recovery should be for the cost of the messageand conveyance which plaintiff was compelled to hire because of the nondelivery.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 45, Cent. Dig. Telegraphs and "Telephones, §§ 64, 67.]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Union County; Klugh, Judge.

Action by William W. Jones against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Geo. H. Perrons, Evans & Finley, and J. A. Sawyer, for appellant.

De Pass & De Pass and Stanyarne Wilson, for respondent.

JONES, J. The plaintiff, living at Whitmire, in Newberry county, S. O, on the morning of February 17, 1904, received a telegraphic message from his father, living at Lockhart Mills, in Union county, announcing the death of plaintiff's brother-in-law, burial next day, with request to come at once. About 12:30 o'clock that day plaintiff, in reply to said message, filed with defendant at Whitmire, to be transmitted to his father at Lockhart Mills, a message in these words: "Meet me at Union this p. m." Plaintiff, within 30 or 45 minutes thereafter, left Whitmire, traveling in a hired conveyance to Union, a distance of 18 miles, expecting that his father would meet him at Union with his own conveyance to carry him to Lockhart Mills, a distance of 14 miles. Plaintiff arrived at Union at 4 o'clock p. m. and remained there until 8 o'clock p. m., expecting his father. He then called up his father at Lockhart Mills over the phone, ascertained that the message had not been delivered, arranged with his father to meet him halfway, procured a conveyance At Union at a cost of $3.50, proceeded towards Lockhart Mills, was met by his father with a conveyance about halfway, and arrived at Lockhart Mills at 12 o'clock that night. There had been a sleet on the night of the 16th of February, the weather was very cold all next day, and grew colder as the evening advanced. The plaintiff brought this action for damages for alleged negligent and willful failure to deliver the message to his father, alleging as elements of damages that he was thereby compelled to wait at a disagreeable livery and horse stable in the town of Union about four hours on a bitter cold evening, that he was compelled to hire a vehicle and travel over rough road in the cold bitter night to Lockhart Mills, and that he suffered great mental anguish because of defendant's conduct. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $250.

1. The defendant's first exception alleges error in allowing the plaintiff, over objection, to testify that, when he delivered the message to the agent at Whitmire, he told the agent, substantially, that his wife's brother was dead, that the burial was next day, that he had to go that night, could not make It by train, and wanted that message sent to his father to meet him at Union with conveyance. The appellant does not dispute the general rule that it is competent to show that a telegraph company had notice of the importance and purposes of a message, either from the face of the message or from information had or given at the filing of the same; but the point now made Is that the testimony was not competent in this instance because of the decision on the former appeal in this case (70 S. C. 540, 50 S. E. 198), holding that it was proper to strike out of the complaint an allegation "that said message was written by said agent for plaintiff, who told the said agent that he wanted the message to tell his father to meet himself and wife that evening with turnout at Union, " and that, with this allegation stricken out; there was no allegation in the complaint to which the testimony was relevant. An examination of the opinion, in 70 S. C. 540, 50 S. E. 198, will show that the purpose of the defendant and the court was to strike from the complaint all allegations therein tending to connect plaintiff's wife and baby with the message. To have done otherwise would have permitted plaintiff to contradict the terms of the message which he alleged that he delivered to defendant It is not the intention or effect of that decision to prevent the plaintiff from showing, so far as she was concerned, that defendant had notice of the purposes of the message from its terms, in connection with the information conveyed to defendant's agent. The ruling of the circuit court was therefore correct

2. The second exception being withdrawn, we notice the third exception, which relates to the relevancy of certain testimony as to...