The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-01-13

it, probably because he had lost his head. As stopping, however, would have been the noss natural thing to do, the chauffeur was held liable for the damage incurred to the two pedes- tirans. Porter vs. Hetherington, 158 s. w (Afo.) 469.
 Repair Guarantees.
 Much dissatisfaction is caused be- tween owners of cars and garage own CTS or repair men who do repair work A recent case was that where a car owner had his machine repaired and had an understanding after the repair was made with the garage owner and in the presence of a, third party, that the job would be guaranteed, for a year. The court held that as 1sa e war ranty-that is, the guarantee for a year-was not part of the original contract, and as there was no new consideration to support 1t, the owner of the machine could not recover from the garagemen the amounts he nan paid for subsequent repafns within the year period on the same part of the machine.-Mercury Motor Co Ns. Mc- Kenna, 1sS ". Y. supp. Al.
 Drivers, Negligence TrolIeys' Defence Tn a. ease where an automobile was da ansaSea-bE co11ision a street car hen leaving it's garage, decision bv tf1e lower court favored the auto mobile owner, as the evidence shoWeu that the motorman of the street car was negligent. However, when the came came before the court of appeals, the company brought evidence that the driver leaving the garage had not taken proper precau tions to make sure no street car was appToaching, thereby perr1ai ting himself tez Peeonae guilty Of contributors negIgence- This lat fer fault of his constituted a complete defense of the car company in the eyes of the law. the jury in the lower court not having been instructed spe- officially on this point was cause for appeal of the case and the higher court found the cause sufficient to reverse the decision and acquit the company Austin Street Railway CO vs- Hehirl, ct al 15s S. w 1Tex.o 1040.
 GARBAGE NOT LIABLE FOB TheftE. SUE HEAD.
 Garage Not. Liable For Ihefss-
 The question is often asked if a gar. age owner can be held responsible for parts stolen from cars being garaged with him. A recent Texas decision held that the garage owner is not re- sponsible for such thefts. The case in question was where generator was stolen from a machine being stored The court held that the garage owner had custody of the machine, but this custody did not make him owner of the machine, nor did it give him such possession of the machine as would require the action Of the theft to be prosecuted by him. The prosecution of the theft was entirely up to the car owner. Staha vs. State, 151 s. " Supp. 54S
 Excessive Speed Not Held Dangerous
 Tn a recent Indiana case a car own- CT killed a minor and the 1atter,s faith CT was awarded s1, 800 damages. The car owner held the accident was due to a connecting rod between the steer ing column and the steering knuckIe becoming disconnected. The ear own CT claimed to have examined the car before starting out and every thing was found satisfactory. Tn spite of this, and also in spite Of the fact that the speed was not excessive, the car owner was held responsible. Fox vs. Barchman, 99, N F. s8e.
 Legal Night Speed
 An Iowa court has recently held that an autonnobilist is resnonsible; when he drives into a horse vehicle at night when travelling at more than 20 miles per hour. In case tested the horse driver was killed and the automobile owner was sued by the Idecedent's son and was awarded $55O The court held that the driver of ev- cry automobile must know that trav-i