The American Electrical Cases (Cited Am Electl. Cas.) Volume 1; Being a Collection of All the Important Cases (Excepting Patent Cases) Decided in the State and Federal Courts of the United States from 1873 [To 1908] on Subjects Relating to the Telegraph (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1894 Excerpt: ...Also, notes to Harris v. W. U. Tel. Co., ante, p. 37; Qrinnett v. W. U. Co., ante, p. 70. Western Union Telegraph Company V. Roberts. Supreme Court of Indiana, November, 1882 (87 Ind. 377.) Indiana Statute.--Action Fob Penalty. Form of complaint held sufficient to meet the rule that in penal actions the pleading should be strictly construed. Action for penalty. Appeal by defendant below. Facts stated in the opinion. Western Union Telegraph Company v. Roberts. J. A. Stein and O. W. Collins, for appellant. M. H. Walker and H. Phares, for appellee. Howk, J.: This was a suit by the appellee against the appellant to recover the statutory penalty prescribed in section 4176, R. S. 1881, in force at the time, for its failure to transmit a certain message. The trial of the cause by the court resulted in a finding and judgment for the appellee for the amount of the penalty. The only error complained of in argument, by the appellant's counsel, is the overruling of its demurrer, for the want of sufficient facts, to appellee's complaint. In discussing this error, counsel say: "We think the demurrer should have been sustained, as we are of the opinion that the averments are not sufficiently specific to show that the company was an electric telegraph company that had a line of wires wholly or partly within this State, and doing business for the public for hire. We refer the court to the case of Western Union Tel. Co. v. Aoctiell, 69 Ind. 199. We rest, relying on this decision for the reversal of the judgment below. This being a penal case, we contend that the pleading should be construed strictly; that unless the plaintiff brings himself clearly within the letter of the law he can not prevail." This is the only point made by the appellant's counsel in their brie...