Cable Co. v. Fleischner. Damages for mental distress will not be allowed unless the company had notice that failure to deliver would have such effect; and where the person whose death was announced was a brother-in-law of the addressee, such notice was not given by the message itself. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Patsy McCoy, Court of Civil Appeals, April 3, 1895 (31 S. W. Rep. 210). Sunday telegrams, in absence of special contract, are received with the understanding that they are to be transmitted and delivered subject to such reasonable rule as may have been established for the conduct of the business. A regulation fixing reasonable hours for the transaction of business on Sunday held valid. A stipulation permitting delivery to be made on a day subsequent to that of its receipt at the terminal office is in absence of fraud valid. W. U. Tel. Co. v. J. L. Russell, Court of Civil Appeals, May 1, 1895 (31 S. W. Rep. 698). Circumstances held to show negligence of a telegraph company in failing to deliver a message after its receipt at the terminal office. W. U. Tel. Co. v. James Boots, Court of Civil Appeals, May 29, 1895 (31 S. W. Rep. 825). The mere fact of delay of a telegram makes a prima facie case of negligence, and throws the burden upon the company of proving that if its wire was out of order it was not in fault. Damages may be recovered for negligence in the delivery of an interstate telegram. WISCONSIN. Gustav Hartstein v. W. U. Tel. Co., Supreme Court, March 5, 1895 (89 Wis. 531). Nonsuit held properly granted in action for delay of telegram relating to business matters. FEDERAL COURTS. C. R. L. Findlay v. W. U. Tel. Co., U. S. Circuit Court, Western District of Virginia, May 23, 1894 (64 Fed. Rep. 459). The addressee is bound by the stipulation in a telegraph blank, limiting the time within which to present claims for damages. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Thomas J. Coggin et al., U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, May 6, 1895 (68 Fed. Rep. 137). In an action for damages for non-delivery of the following telegram: "Be on hand evening of third. I got early;" held, that no recovery could be had, since (1) it did not appear that the addressee would have understood the message if he had received it; and (2) neither the meaning nor importance of it were disclosed to the operator to whom the message was presented for transmission. GENERAL NOTE. Memoranda of ca ses not selected for reprinting in full, and not prieviously men tioned in notes. ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY.-TAXATION. Commonwealth v. Edison Electric Light & Power Company, Pennsyl. vania Supreme Court, July 18, 1895 (32 Atl. Rep. 419). The following is the head-note: "A company generating electricity, and selling it to customers for power, illuminating or heating purposes, is not a manufacturing company, within Act 1885, exempting the capital stock of manufacturing companies from taxation." ELECTRIC RAILWAY.-STREET USE. Ann Curvin v. Rochester Railway Company, N. Y. General Term, Fifth Department, June, 1894 (78 Hun, 555). The plaintiff, owner of real estate, signed, with a large number of other owners, the following instrument: "For value received, I hereby grant to the Rochester Railway Company the right to construct, maintain and operate a double-tracked railroad upon Plymouth avenue, from the bridge over the abandoned Genesee Valley canal to the southerly end of Plymouth avenue, such railroad to consist of a single track upon each side of the roadway and to be operated by electricity as motive power." The following is an extract from the head-note: Held, that such instrument gave no right to the railroad company to lay and operate a railroad beyond the limits of the street therein referred to; That such instrument must have such practical operation as the case permitted of, and if there could not be two tracks in front of the premises of a person signing such instrument, the railroad company must be content with one, and if that one could not be laid outside of the traveled track of the highway it must be laid on the traveled track thereof, or the company must forego the privilege of laying any track at all over such portion of the road. TELEGRAM, INVIOLABILITY OF. In re Storrer, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California, Aug. 2, 1894 (63 Fed. Rep. 564). A telegram is not a privileged communication in the hands of the telegraph company; its production may be compelled for the purpose of investigating, by a United States Grand Jury, charges of criminal acts of the parties to the messages, in which the telegraph company is not implicated. Contents of subpoena duces tecum, held sufficiently definite and specific under the circumstances of the given case. Cases of this series cited in opinion: Ex parte Brown, vol. 1, p. 316; United States v. Hunter, vol. 1, p. 444; National Bank v. National Bank, vol. 1, p. 129; Woods v. Miller, vol. 1, p. 324; Ex parte Jaynes, vol. 2, p. 454. TELEPHONE,-INFORMATION BY TO SUPPORT ATTACHMENT. Charles S. Murphy v. William C. Jack et al., New York Court of Appeals, April 17, 1894 (142 N. Y. 215). While the material averments to support an attachment may be made on information and belief, and such information may be communicated to the affiant by telephone, it must appear that the affiant knew the person so communicating with him and recognized his voice, or knew in some satisfactory way who was speaking with him. INDEX. Abutting owner, rights of, as to use of highway for In rural highway, fee to center of which is in abutting Eels v. Am. Teleph. & Tel. Co. (N. Y.). Contra as to telegraph poles. People v. Eaton (Mich.). And as to telephone appliances. Cater v. Northwestern Teleph. Exch. Co. (Minn.)..... Injunction at suit of, to prevent replacing certain telegraph Wirth v. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (Ohio)...... 184, note. Having consented to running of telegraph line in front of W. U. Tel. Co. v. Bullard (Vt.)..... 102 Protected by injunction from erection of telephone pole in Russ v. Pa. Teleph. Co. (Pa.)..... 109 While municipal corporation has right to use streets for fire Prentiss v. Cleveland Teleph. Co. (Ohio)......... 125 Loeber v. Butte General Elec. Co. (Mont.)......... 130 Electric street railway and appliances impose additional 166 Electric street railway imposes no new burden, in city Limburger v. San Antonio, &c., Ry. Co. (Tex.).................. State, Kennelly, Pros. v. Jersey City (N. J.). West Jersey R. Co. v. Camden, &c., R. Co. (N. J.)...... Never adjudicated in New Jersey as to rural highway. Borden v. Atlantic Highlands, &c., Elec. Ry. Co. (N. J.) ................ May restrain by injunction, as nuisance, construction of electric railway in borough street, without consent of local authorities. Thomas v. Inter-County St. Ry. Co. (Pa.)........ Held entitled to recover against electric street railway company for injury to his right of access caused by cutting down street without compensating him. PAGE. 156 152 146 137 179 175 Eachus v. Los Angeles Consol. Elec. Ry. Co. (Cal.)... 184, note. Not entitled to damages for interference with right of access by electric railway coming so near sidewalk as to interfere with convenient receipt and delivery of goods. Limburger v. San Antonio, &c., St. Ry. Co. (Tex.).... In action at suit of, to restrain operation of electric railway which had filled in roadway in front of plaintiff's house so as to injure his means of access and to compel restoration of road to former level, judgment of sonsuit reversed. 156 Westheffer v. Lebanon, &c., St. Ry. Co. (Pa.)....... 184, note. Stay of proceedings granted at instance of, pending hearing and decision of certiorari to review ordinance granting right to erect trolley railway, vacated. State, Roebling, Pros. v. Trenton (N. J.)....... Has property interest in shade trees along highway, and right to their enjoyment, subject only to convenience of public travel. Such property right is proper subject of legislation for his protection. Not estopped from asserting property interest in highway and trees as against telegraph company, by failure to apply for injunction when line was built. Dailey v. State (Ohio)............ Electric railway company authorized by city to erect trolley 136 186 |