| OCR Text |
Show Another interesting decision, illu s trativo of the liability of telegraph companies, has just been given in Philadelphia. Phil-adelphia. From the "Public Ledger" of that city, we take the following statement of 'he ease. Geo. Y. Fassmore eaes the Western Union telegraph company for damages. The plaintiff was the owner of oil lands in W. a., and in li65, securing a pur-ch pur-ch ascr in Mr. Edwards,of this city, telegraphed tele-graphed to him with reference to the purchase of the property of Mr. Edwards Ed-wards at $10,000, "I hold it," but the telegram delivered to Edwards read "I sold it." Shortly after oil Iand3 ftll in value and the matter fell through, and the sale was lost by reason of the error in the telegraph dispatch. Between Be-tween that time and 1808, plaintiff cou.d not sell the property, and in the latter year was compelled to sell it for $4,000, the highest amount he could get. The cais, alter the examination of witnesses, went to the jury on the questions ques-tions of negligence and damages, there being reserved for the decision of the court the following points : first Whether plaintiff could recover, re-cover, the message not being insured in a "repeated message." Second. Whether the form of the message transmitted to and received by Mr. Edwards, discharged him from hia liability, under his contract to purchase, pur-chase, with the plaintiff. The jury gave a verdict of $4,000 lor plaintiff. |
