The issues submitted to the jury in Hunter v. Tel. Co., 135 N. C., 461, were:

1. Was the defendant guilty of negligence, as alleged in the complaint?

2. What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained on account of mental anguish ?

The first of these issues was approved by the Court, and the following issue was suggested in place of the second, because necessary to present the “causal relation between the negligence of the defendant and the damages sustained therefrom by the plaintiff”: “What damage, if any, has the plaintiff thereby sustained on account of mental anguish?” Or, “What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained on account of mental anguish caused by such negligence ?”

In Alexander v. Tel. Co., 141 N. C., 76, the first^issue in the Hunter case and the second issue suggested by the Court were approved, and it was held that it was not error to refuse to submit a third issue involving proximate cause, as the defendant could have the benefit of its contention under the issue of damages.

*238 The issues in the case before us cannot be distinguished from those in the Hunter and Alexander, cases, and these decisions settle authoritatively that when issues are so framed, the first issue presents no question except negligence, considered separate from the result, and that the language in the second issue, “caused by the negligence of the defendant,” is sufficient to sustain a finding of proximate cause.

It follows, therefore, as the question of proximate cause was not in the first issue, but in the second, that the exceptions to the charge on the first issue, permitting the jury to answer it in the affirmative without finding proximate cause, cannot be sustained.

It also appears that his Honor would have been justified in charging the jury that the defendant was negligent upon the admitted facts, as it is not denied that the message when delivered to the defendant at Lexington was addressed to H. F. Hedrick, and when received at the office of the defendant at Winston-Salem it was addressed to S. F. Hedrick, and there is no attempt to explain or excuse the change.

Nor does there appear to be any real controversy as to proximate cause, as the messenger of the defendant, who first received the message for delivery, testified that he was not looking for H. F. Hedrick; that there was a city directory in the office, and if he had turned to it he would have found the correct street address of H. F. Hedrick, and the plaintiff’s uncontradicted evidence that he would have attended the funeral if he had received the message.

The charge as to the presumption of mental anguish arising'from close relationship is sustained by Cushion v. Tel. Co., 123 N. C., 274, which holds that the presumption extends to near relatives of kindred blood,, and this has been approved in Harrison v. Tel. Co., 136 N. C., 382, and in other cases.

The fourth headnote to Sherrill v. Tel. Co., 155 N. C., 250, says that this presumption does not exist when the relationship is that of aunt and niece, and of course the same rule would prevail as between uncle and nephew; but the headnote is not supported by the ‘opinion. The point decided was that proof of the relationship creating the presumption did not prevent the introduction of other evidence of affection existing between the parties.

No error.