Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1914-10-02
Court Comes To The Aid OF The
Threshermen.

erlck county has direct interest for en-
CINE owners and farmers of this county, a
the judgment rendered will also govern il
this county, which is part of the Sixtl
Judicial Circuit of Maryland. The following
report of the case is taken from the Fred
erick City Evening News of September 23
The Circuit Court of Frederick county thi,
morning handed down decision in the
case where the State Roads Commission o.
Maryland sought an injunction to restrain
a dozen owners of traction engines from
running their machines. equipped with
cleats. over improved State roads. The
court dismissed the application. In all
probability an appeal will be taken,
] 1t will be recalled that the State authori-
ties made number of arrests for violation
of the State law. which makes it a misde-
meanor for traction engines with cleats to
run upon State highways. These machine
4 owners had their cases held over for court
When the grand jury, now in session. failed
! to find any bill against these alleged VIC
lators of the State law. the State authori-
ties became exasperated and asked the
court for an injunction.
The case occupied several days in court,
concluding Saturday afternoon. when ar
guments were made TO the court. Judges
Hammond Urner and Glenn II. Worthing-
ton sat in the case. More than fifty wit
nesses were examined, and throughout the
case was hard fought. Members of the
State Roads Commission attended the ses-
sions and took much interest in the pro-
ceedings. 1t is likely from the attitude of
the State authorities that the case will be
carried to the Court of Appeals to finally
determine their rights in this puzzling
question.
In dismissing the application for an in
junction, the court set forth that it has no
authority in the exercise of the equitable
jurisdiction invoked to enforce the criminal
law of the State in reference to the use
ofits highway system. The question passed
upon was whether the use of the high
ways by the traction engines occasions
such an injury to the property interests
represented by the plaintiffs in the State
road system as to justify the exercise by
the court of its power of restraint by in
junction"
In regard to the damage done by the
engines, the opinion states, in part I'm
less there is substantially harmful effect
produced upon the road surface by the
traction engines of the defendants, the
prohibition of their use of the roads for the
purposes we have indicated would be al
together inequitable. In view of the heavy
and constant expenditures which the State
is making to repair the much greater in
juries caused by other uses to which its
road system is subjected under the sanction
of the law and especially in view of the
fact that the impressiOnable surface which
is said to be affected by the cleats on the
engine wheels has been required to be
applied, maintained and renewed on ac-
count of the wear and tear produced by
the other agencies to which we have re-
ferred, 1t would be manifest injustice to
restrain the defendants from using the
improved highways for the movement of
their engines in the prosecution of their
necessary work because of injuries which
do not produce some material impairment
of the roads in structure or serviceability.
1t is perfectly clear that the evidence does
not even approximately measure up to the
allegations of the bill az to the extent of
the injury which the engines actually
according to the overwhelming weight of
the testimony. is merely to leave indenta-
tons in the oil and gravel composition,
which are soon effaced by the wheels of
automobiles and other vehicles"
The opinion points out that the traction
engines are used only for ordinary pur-
poses of transportation, and the movement
along the State roads is not frequent II
states further more than fifty reputable
witnesses have stated that no injury results
to the improved roads from their use by
engines constructed like those of the de-
PENDANTS. There has been testimony offered
by the plaintiff. however. tending to show
an occasional breakage by the cleats of the
coating of oil and fine gravel which COM
pletes and protects the road surface. 1t
was explained that without the application
of the superficial coating the macadam
body of the road would be loosened by the
suction of automobile tires in rapid motion.
According to the plaintiffs proof the mac
adam itself would not be liable to more
than ordinary wear from the pressure of
the engine cleats, but the surface wear is
made susceptible to the injury of which
complaint is made because of the presence
of the protective coating which the use Of
the roads by automobiles has necessitated.
In regard to repairs required. the court
says: THE evidence is that even if trac-
ton engines were entirely eliminated the
existing system Of frequent inspection and
repair would nevertheless have to be main
taned," and continues further: "In addi-
ton to the current process of repair it
appears that the proper maintenance of
the road surface requires that il be re-oiled
over its whole extent at yearly intervals.
This necessity also appears to exist re-
gardless Of the particular wear on the road
for which the traction engines are said to be
responsible" The conclusion is that the
evidence is to the effect that the engines
complained of do not injure the improved
roads in such manner and to such extent
as to justify the exertion Of the restraining
power"
In the case Of the Roads Commission VS..
Harry Yonkers in the Circuit Court Of Ale
eany county. difference was shown where
the traction engine was used for daily
transportation and not going from one farm
to another.
In redard IN whether traction engines