205 Mass. 598 | Mass. | 1910
The plaintiff, having occasion to use the telegraph frequently in, his business, and desiring to give a notice that would entitle him to recover special damages suf
The first count was at common law for a refusal to receive and forward the message, and the second was under the R. L. c. 122, §§ 9, 11, for the same cause of action. The defendant was engaged in a quasi public employment, to be carried on for the accommo
The other count was under the R. L. c. 122, §§ 9, 10, to recover the forfeiture provided by § 10. The question under this count is whether the refusal of the defendant was wilful, within the meaning of the section. It is conceded that it was intentional, and the judge found that it was unreasonable. He ruled that a refusal that was both intentional and unreasonable was wilful, within the meaning of the statute. This ruling was right.
The defendant’s argument upon this branch of the case is chiefly, in the nature of an assumption that the conduct of the
We have already said that these findings were well warranted by the evidence.
^Exceptions overruled.