Martin v. Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Citations

• 18 Wash. 260
• 51 P. 376
• 1897 Wash. LEXIS 150

Syllabus

<p>SETTLEMENT OF STATEMENT OF FACTS — NOTICE—COMPUTATION OF TIME — FAILURE TO DELIVER TELEPHONE MESSAGE — DAMAGES — EVIDENCE — HEARSAY.</p> <p>Under the statute requiring notice of application for settlement of a statement of facts to be served not less than three days before time of hearing, notice given on the 9th of the month of settlement, to be had on the 12th, satisfies the statutory requirement; and the fact that a Sunday intervenes makes no difference if the last day does not fall on Sunday, as it is only in such case that Sunday is excluded from the computation of time.</p> <p>In an action for damages for failure to deliver a telephone message to a witness to be present at a pending trial, the testimony of an attorney in such former action as to the importance of such witness and that his presence and testimony would have produced a different result in such trial is inadmissible.</p> <p>Testimony by a witness as to the contents of a letter written by one person to another and which he had seen is inadmissible on the ground of being hearsay evidence.</p> <p>The failure of a telephone company to deliver a message for a witness summoned to testify in a pending action, and which was lost by reason as alleged of the absence of such witness, constitutes too remote a cause of damages to be actionable.</p> <p>The toll paid for the delivery of a telephone message is recoverable in an action therefor, in case of the failure to deliver the message for several days after its receipt by the telephone company.</p>