The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-07-25
Withholds Decision In Speeding Case Until He Can Write His Views
 of Law Reckless Driving Altogeth- CT a Question of Condi- tions that Exist at Mo- ment of Alleged Offense Finds Arthur .J. .Moulton, Globe Trotting Driver, Guilty and Fines Him
 Fifteen Dollars

| Judge Foster of the City court to- | day wrote out his interpretation of | the much mooted automobile law en- cted by the last session of the gen. | eral assembly, in connection with the trial of Arthur J. Moulton, E. 61st l street, New York, globe trotting motorist. whom he fined $15 and costs | for driving too fast.
 Moulton was one of the heads of
 the B. L. M. Automobile company of | his car was B. L. M., or Breese, German engine mounted upon an American made chassis.
 Special Policeman Clifford Gorgas arrested him at Colorado avenue and State street Saturday afternoon. Cor gas had followed him from the ton following so close up that of Wilbur F. Brainard. the publisher,
 who was found not guilty last Friday,
 was awaited with much interest by
 automobiles.
 Judge Foster made it plain in his
 judgment that he felt the weight of
 criticism that had been directed at
 him by Secretary of State Matthew
 Rogers and others because of his de-
 cision in the Brainard case. The case
 of Moulton, however, was not parallel
 for while in the Brainard case there
 was no evidence that there had been
 anyone imperilled in this case, the ac-
 cused did not rebutt the facts
 brought out in the prosecution.
 After Gorgas had testified to Moul-
 and told of the conditions, the ac-
 cused made a statement, telling he had had 15 years experience driving a car, and had the machine under perfect control, and further, that he had guided his speed by that of a car ahead.
 Gorgas was recalled, and Judge Foster asked him about the car ahead. He was of the opinion that the car ahead was going much slower than
 Moulton and that the accused motor st was overhauling it.
 Judge Foster did not give his de- c1s1On at once but said inasmuch as he has observed there was a great difference of opinion on the automo- bile law he would take some time in getting out his decision.
 There has been," he said, "a great deal of discussion as to the true in- depreciation of the law and the pub lie, especially the automobilists should know the true interpretation of such law. l am not prepared at this time to pass on the case. I will give the matter due consideration and file my opinion of the law with the clerk for the benefit of the automobilists in future cases. I would like to con- feel that it would inconvenience to the accused, whether guilty or not guilty"
 He ordered a recess of 15 minutes and retiring to his office then wrote out his opinion which he handed to z, of citations to support his opinion. The opinion follows:
 "The accused is charged with opera ting a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state at a rate of speed greater than was reasonable and proper, having regard to the width traffic and use of the highway. The complaint is based on sections II and 13. Chapter 211 of the Acts of 1909. By force of this act it is incumbent upon the state to prove the allegations in the complaint beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 13 states that if the speed exceeds 25 miles an hour for an eighth of an hour, this shall be prima facie evidence that the person | operating such motor vehicle is oper- l ating the same at a rate of speed | greater than is reasonable and proper l section II of the act. If therefore the l accused is charged with reckless l driving at a speed less than 25 miles | an hour, the state must in the first | instance prove such recklessness spe- | in order to claim a convic- | tion This evidence is of course sub- | ject to rebuttal on the part of the | accused.
 eff the accused is charged with reck- less driving, at a speed greater than 25 miles an hour, the state may under section 13 of this act, simply prove that the speed was in excess of 25 niles an hour and rest its case, thrust ng the burden on the defendant to go forward with his case. The de- fendant may then present such evil Hence as he may have to show that he speed at which he was travelling was not reckless, unreasonable, or inn proper under the conditions surround ng him. The prima facie case is not ! conclusive case, does not shift the burden of proof. The establishment ,f a prima facie case simply puts on he opposing party the burden or duty Q go forward with his case and in he event of his failing in that, burden ,r duty the judgment must be against Jim.
 Under the present law therefore the lriver of a motor vehicle may be driv ng only one half mile an hour and ret be driving recklessly or a man nay be driving 50 miles an hour and | vas clearly within his legal rights.
 "Such cases are not to be decided lpon public clamor or hearsay, but lpon a careful investigation of the acts and the law as applicable to the acts of such case. If the law is vrong the fault lies with those who lrafted and framed the law. The .ourt must take the law as it is In he present case, the state has prov d that the accused drove on Fairfield venue from the Orphan Asylum to Clinton avenue a motor vehicle at a peed exceeding 30 miles an hour. that he distance is more than one eighth nile, that streets intersect Fairfield venue at this section, that there were i