
    The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Carroll.
    A verdict for more than $10 in plaintiff’s favor was erroneous. Inasmuch as he had offered to settle with the defendant for that sum, . which was due him, the excess thereof is ordered to be written off the verdict, and the judgment will stand affirmed.
    March 10, 1890.
    
      Telegraphs. Damages. Verdict. Practice. Before Judge TIansell. Thomas superior court. April term, 1889.
    Carroll delivered to the telegraph company a message directed to Jacksonville, Fla., ordering fresh meat. The company erroneously transmitted the message to a firm in Chicago, 111., of the same name as the one in Jacksonville from whom the plaintiff ordered; and the meat was shipped from Chicago, hut the plaintiff was delayed in receiving it five days longer than he would have been had it been promptly shipped from Jacksonville. He sued for damages in a justice’s court, claiming $7.65 for extra freight paid, $2 for icing the meat in Atlanta, 95 cents for the cost of the missent dispatch and of a subsequent one sent by him inquiring why the meat had not been shipped, $25 for loss in business by not having the meat for five days, $25 for damage to business by the same cause, and $25 for attorneys’ fees for nonpayment by the company of the damages. The company confessed judgment and appealed to the superior court. The plaintiff’s testimony showed the payment by him of the expenses shown by the first three items of damage above stated. He testified that he ordered the meat to fill orders for it that he himself had received, and would not have done so otherwise ; that he could not obtain such meat anywhere about Thomasville, where he lived, that he would have made $25, $5 a day, had he received it on the day following the evening when he sent the message, which was the time usually required for obtaining it from Jacksonville, he having been in the habit of ordering meat this way; that he received the meat from Chicago on Sunday, and had to keep it until the next day and use it to the best advantage, its condition being bad; that he offered to settle for $10 if the company would pay in thirty days, but it would not do so; and that he had agreed to pay and expected to pay $25 attorneys’ fees in this ease. The jury found for him $35.00. A motion for a new trial was denied, and the defendant excepted.
    A. T. MacIntyre, Jr., by' A. C. King, for plaintiff in errror,
    cited Code, §2944; 19 Ga. 417; 22 Ga. 269; 30 Ga. 561; 34 Ga. 542; 79 Ga. 743, and cit.; 81 Ga. 285 ; 1 Suth. Dam. 84; Wood’s Mayne Dam. §12 et seq.
    
    Hansell & Merrill, by brief, contra,
    
    cited 67 Ga. 534 ; 75 Ga. 583 ; 81 Ga. 285.
   Blandford, Justice.

It is manifest to us that there should have been no greater recovery in this case than for the sum of $10, and that the verdict for $25 additional was erroneous; but inasmuch as the plaintiff had offered to compromise and settle the case with the defendant at a fair sum, which was due him, viz. the sum of $10, we affirm the judgment of the court below, with the direction that the court cause to be written off from the judgment and verdict all in excess of the sum of $10.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.  