Norwich bulletin., 1914-08-01

Tire case ot Chief of Police Thomas E. Brown against Carl Andrews was heard by Judge Oliver H. Williams m the Third district court Friday It is charged in the complaint that on the night of July IS, 1914, an automobile driven by defendant was in colhsion with an automobile owned by Leonard B. Main, and that after the colllSlon Andrews did not stop, return 10 the scene of the accident to ascertain the damage and render assistance, II nee essary, but proceeded on his way tow ards Westerly. The collision occurred on the Pleasant View road, and Leon ard Main, with Dudley, was on the way to Pleasant View.
 Leonard B. Main testified that he was driving slowly, not over five miles an hour, at the time of the mishap, and was in the grass on the right side or the road. That the Andrews machine came along at 20 miles an hour clip. The hub of his left forward wheel struck the left forward wheel of the Main machine, running two tires, bend ing the forward axle and damaging the steering gear. The Andrews car con- tinued on as if nothing had happened. Frederic C. Olney, counsel for An drews, cross questioned the witness at length in regard to the location of the automobile at the time of collision, in dicating that it was Main instead of Andrews who was at fault, but there was no questioning in regard to the real charge against Andrews for not returning to the scene of the collision.
 Dudley Stewart testified that the Main automobile was going very slow ly and was on the right side of the road, the right hand wheels being in the grass by the roadside, when the Andrews car came along at high speed and struck the Main car. MT. Stew art did not stop. The engine slowed down for a moment at the time of col hston, then picked up and went away at speed. MT. Stewart shouted for Andrews to stop and chased after the machine for about 200 feet.
 Albert B. Smith, who was called to repair the Main automobile soon after the collision, and three other witnesses testified that the Main auto was to the extreme right side of the road and headed towards Pleasant View.
 Carl Andrews. the defendant teS.i- fled that he had operated automobiles for about a year and was somewhat neax-stghted. In testify1ng directly to the point at issue MT. Andrews said he saw the Main car coming towards Pleasant View, with gleam1ng head lights The car was in the middle of the road. while the right wheels of the car he was driving were just beyond the edge of the macadan road, and that he was guiding his car along the edge of the oil covered road, when his car was struck by the Main car. He said his lights were burning and that he footed his horn. After the collision he testified that he stopped, got out of his car, intending to go back and aS- certain the damage if any, but that he thought by the red rear light that the Main car was continuing on in the direction of Pleasant View. So he proceeded on his way. The only dam age to the automobile of witness was a slight bend in the forward axle outside the spring.
 Thomas Barber, an uncle of An drewe, testified as an automobile ex- pert to show that Main and not An- drews was responsible for the collision based on the position of the Main ma chine. Judge Williams granted the request of Attorney Olney for view of the location of the mishap, and the judge MT. Olney, Town Solicitor Harry B. Agard and Messrs. Main and Andrews. and others interested, made the trip in automobiles Court adjourned from 11-30 to 1-30 to permit the visit to the site.
 At the afternoon session Albert c. Smith, Frederick Harvey George E. Broughton and Arthur Chapman, who saw the Main car soon after the col Mston, testified that it was away over on the right side of the road, headed towards Pleasant View. Their testi- mony was frequently punctuated by objections of Attorney Olney, who claimed the testimony was irreVelant and had nothing to do with the posi- ton of the automobile at the time of the accident.
 Arguments were made by Attorney Olney for the defense and by Town Solicitor Agard for the state Judge Williams declared that Carl Andrews was guilty as charged in the complaint and penalty of $25 and costs was inn posed. From this judgment Attorney Olney gave notice of appeal. The bond was fixed at $1,000, which was furnish ed, Senator Thomas Barber of Exeter. uncle of the accused, becoming surety.
 Mir. Main has brought a civil action against Mir. Andrews for damage to the automobile in which the claim is for $500.
 Local Eaconics.