*1 Cо. Telegraph v. Carter S. C. Syllabus. [73 her her of legal rights. that he took part depriving of its in the exercise of the Court defendant invokes aid cannot without ignoring which it grant chancery powеrs, his infant to support that rested him moral obligation hands,” “with clean He not come into Court does daughter. relief. ask for and, therefore, in a equitable is not position for the maintenance In the expenditures making his intention was the Court will presume daughter, or, as said his moral obligation, not to violate discharge natural those that he was “moved by the Circuit Judge, for its whiсh no decree offspring, of a parent dictates can eradicate human agency, altogether divorce nor other the human from breast.” Court, that the
It is the of this judgment Court аffirmed. Circuit TEL. v. UNION CO.
CARTER WESTERN Telegraph Company Damages—Mental Anguish. 1. — telegram, —A train, ready,” conveyance have bring mother on ten o’clock
“Will having purpose was sent for the allegations funeral, naturally and might show that it preparations made for the that a failure to deliver the reasonably expected depot conveyance could body to remain cause procured. and wilfulness negligence based on If nonsuit be moved in action
2. negli- tending support evidence whole and there be upon the be refused. gence, motiоn should refused, are assigned the reasons therefor properly 3. If nonsuit be immaterial. Appeal unless trial will not be considered refusing new order 4. set out in record. of motion be grоunds Rehearing refused. December, Florence, 1904. Af- J.,
Before DanTzler, firmed. Term,
Action Carter by against Western Union Telegraph John Prom' for Company. defendant plaintiff, appeals. 1 Messrs. Geo\ H. Willcox, Perrons Willcox & for ap- The latter pellant. cite: will no Allegation preparation of not give damages 71 anguish: S. foundation for for C., 39; C., ; R., 343 39 Ped. 181. S. New trial should C., granted: S'.
Mr. W. P. contra Clayton, (oral argument).
The 14, 190'6, in this case was filed opinion but February remittitur held for up petition rehearing
March The of opinion the Court was delivered by Gary. The error the exceptions assign Mr. Justice Honor, of his the Circuit in part the de- Judge, overruling murrer in complaint, refusing the motions for nonsuit and trial. new contains the following allegations: 1903, on the
“That 19th of day September, between in the hours 7 and 8 morning, plaintiff delivered C., in defеndant’s at to the agent Lynchburg, regard S. mother, death of plaintiff’s following message: “ C., 16, 1903. ‘Lynchburg, Sept. S. “ Carter, ‘To Millard C. mother Effingham, bring Will S. train, have ready. on ten o’clock Carter.’ conveyance John “That the said was not received in Effingham arrived until after the dead plaintiff body with mother, and that no' the funeral had been in non-arrival of the consequence message. which the arrival of was coextensive plaintiff, That upon Charleston, the train the arrival of from' Elorence to at if should have arrived half- on time about Effingham 10, at plaintiff inquired telegraph agent Effing- past said he telegram; if he had received that he replied ham Carter C.
Opinion the Court.' [73 it, he which not, regard make inquiries had but would Charleston, he received when telegrаphing did b-y as sent from Lynchburg Charleston said telegram from " 10' and some time between and this he received plaintiff, M., train which plaintiff brought A. after the o’clock Effingham. departed his mother time above at Lynchburg, “That mentioned, promptly promised received said message, usual same, charge therefor the and received to-transmit in advance. said Millard
“That address although *3 their defendant, regular and was-within well known to- was wilfully, the said defendant limits of delivery Effingham, said message withheld and manto-nly grossly negligently from, offices, Charleston, C., their of one of him in the city arrival of after the fаiled to deliver said message and mother, his- which of train and plaintiff corpse M., and no 10' 11 o’clock A. was- somewhere between made, intended by sending as was had been preparations said message. wanton, wilful and grossly reason of defendant’s
“That b-y said message, Millard Carter failure deliver to- negligent funeral, fo-r were made aforesaid, no preparations- as remain compelled mother was of plaintiff’s the corpse hours, until conveyance for several the depot platform, upon and suffering mental anguish tor great сould be procured, five hundred of plaintiff and to' damage of the plaintiff, dollars.” on complaint ground demurred
The defendant a cause of to constitute sufficient not state facts that it did reasons-: following for the action it that the complaint appears the face of In that on “I. negligently and grossly wilfully, wantonly not did Charleston, of in the city S'. said message withhold fail to negligently wantonly grossly wilfully, not did message. said deliver Term, 1905. it does not ap- the face the complaint
“II. In that on the complaint, set in up- that of the any consequences pеar mother plaintiff’s such as the of the resting C., were proximately at depot platform Effingham, in the telegram. caused delay delivery by any that face of the complaint In that it on the1 “III. appears act of in sense by any was not any damaged plaintiff defendant, in act defendant: any or consequence the face of the complaint In that it appears
“IV. suffering or anguish could not have plaintiff under the that could measured or by damages, cognizable in the law, as a result defendant alleged of any act. ás a cause. complaint proximate com- In that it does not face of the appear
“V. withheld, or its delayed that the was plaint delivery or wantonly, wilfully, grossly negligently.” negligently, in effect that the sеnt alleges plaintiff mother, to the death of regard Lynch- he Millard Carter him burg Effingham., notifying the 10 train and his mother on o’clock bring that the to.have was sent conveyance ready; telegram- for the made for purpose having *4 funeral; that the defendant and wilfully, wantonly negli- and failed deliver the conse- message, withheld to gently made no which no had been con- quence The of his mother was was ready. compelled veyance hours, the several to the platform depot remain upon the the The suffering plaintiff. great anguish the face the and the allegations that such results have naturally reasonably show might the failure the The to deliver message. been expected therefore, was, Overruled. demurrer properly a the made motion for nonsuit on grounds that there was to sustain the testimony no- tending allega- wantonness, wilfulness and or mere
tions of negli- The defendant did not make a motion for gence. thе of action cause based wilful- nonsqit upon upon 28 —73 S. C.
Opinion [fS of the Court. wanitonness, the action founded -and or cause of upon ness failure mere the whole case. The uрon but negligence, case, the circumstances the the under message, to deliver The non- evidence of an unreasonable delay. afforded some that suit have been сould not properly granted ground there no evidence of negligence. was 260, Co.,
In the 256, case Machen v. Tel. 72 S. rule to nonsuits is thus stated: “The cases are numerous as as the that whеre the point, complaint alleges damages misconduct, the result result of and as of wilful negligence, case, a cannot as if there nonsuit be to- whole granted as the result of tending show any testimony damages * * * either or In all the wilfulness. cases cited negligence above, for nonsuit was to' motion directed the whole decided was that nonsuit if point was improper, there evidence a verdict dam tending support either for or wilful misconduct.” ages Under negligence are this we constrained to rule that the motion for authority nonsuit refusеd. was properly
The defendant also from' order of appealed nonsuit reasons ground assigned by presiding were erroneous. We have shown that it Judge nonsuit; error of law to hаve granted and, refused, as motion properly was reasons assigned are immaterial.
The defendant likewise from the order appealed refusing trial,
new but the exceptiоns considered, cannot be as the which the grounds upon motion was are not out in the set record. Court,
It is the of this judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
March 7, Curiam. After careful consider PER *5 herein,
ation of the petition Court is satisfied thаt 5 no material either of question, fact, law or has been or overlooked.
disregarded 485 State Adams. Term, is, therefore, It ordered, that the petition be dismissed the order heretоfore granted the remittitur re- staying voked.
STATE v. ADAMS. New Trial —Murder—Jurisdiction.—After this Court affirming judgment of Circuit Court in murder remanding case
with instructions to assign sentence, a new day for execution of Cir- cuit Court jurisdiction is without to entertain a motion for new trial Court; after-discovered evidence without leave of this and this question can for be made the first time in this Court the State appeal from оrder of Circuit granting Court new trial on after- discovered evidence.
Before Colleton, March, J., 1905. Reversed. Townsend, Motion in Circuit Court for new trial on after-discovered evidencе, in v. R. A. Adams. From order State granting motion, appeals. State James Davis and
Solicitors W. Julian B. Jervey, St. appellant. Question cites: Davis can jurisdiction
Solicitor C'., made here: 19 218. Circuit Court no jurisdiction S. C., 428; C., 4201; C., 14 39 motion: 40 S. S. S. cites: Jurisdictional can be Jervey question Solicitor S, C., 218; 385; C., C., 331; C., here: 19 25 27 28 S. S. S. below, C., 313; 288. Court 70- is without jurisdiction S. 420'; C., 414; C., 294; motion: 39 39 40 S. S-. S. S. C., 506, 522. Gruber, contra,
Messrs. Howell & cite: Remittitur carried C., 337; jurisdiction C., 262; to Circuit Court: