A One-Letter Typo That Cost a Telegraph Giant $6,000

The insertion of the letter 'a' in the name H. W. Baker promises to cost the Western Union Telegraph Company about $6,000 in the suit brought by Baker to recover damages for loss caused by the delivery of a message to Abram Barker. A jury in United States court yesterday returned a verdict for plaintiff for $6,631.50 after about an hour. The case was begun Thursday before Judge Hanford and was closed at about 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon.

Judge Hanford instructed the jury that a telegraph company was charged with the duty of exercising a high degree of care as to promptness and that any negligence entitled the parties injured to damages. The defendant was not responsible for any wrong committed by another company if the two were not associated, and it was the duty of the jury to determine whether the error was made before the message was received by the Western Union. The company, said the court, was liable for any error committed by its agents but was not liable beyond that.

The evidence in the case disclosed that the consignee of the ship W. H. Lincoln, loaded with lumber, was B. Singer & Co., of Sydney, Australia, upon a contract to be made by telegram. On September 7 Singer sent a cable asking the condition of the market. On October 1 Singer cabled: 'Four pounds, c. i. f. coast, insurance, exchange. Please close; market dull; advise soonest.' This was addressed as 'B. Sydney Baker,' but on delivery here read 'Barker,' and the deliverer went to Abram Barker, at the merchants' National bank, and remained there a week while Barker was on a fishing trip. Upon his return it was for the first time delivered to Baker.

In the meantime the market had fallen to such a degree that the amount obtained for the cargo, less expenses, as Baker contended, had he given the company the opportunity to accept the offer, he would have realized the amount for which he brought suit.

The defense moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the terms of the telegraph blank specifically exempted the company from any damages either for mistake or delay, and also that as the error was made in Australia by a connecting company no responsibility could attach. Counsel for Baker insisted that conditions in a telegraphic message exempting the company for losses only apply to a sender, not to one receiving; also that although the error was made in Australia, the Western Union was liable as it connected with the Australian company as its agent, and that the mere fact that the message was addressed 'Barker' could not excuse the failure to deliver to Baker, where the agent of the company could show it was for the merchant. The nonsuit was refused. The case will probably be appealed.