Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-04-27
VEHICLE HAS AS
MUCH RIGHT TO A
CROSSING AS CAR
Does Not Have To Stop To
Avoid Accident If Use
Judgment

ANNt NAot q pNISOH sees street.
ear approaching does not alone and of
itself spell negligence if an attempt is
made to cross the track; but the
quatum of care necessary is to be deter.
mined by the proximity and speed of
the car plus the surrounding circum.
stances, =" says Justice Harris, of the
supreme court, in an opinion in which
the expression reasonable and prudent
care : which person is supposed to ex.
ert in order to avoid danger and in
which the judgment for damages in the
sum of $l7,2l3.50, awarded Peter Mac.
chi against the Portland Railway, Light
q Power company, for personal injuries
IS affirmed. The case is appealed from
Multnomah county and T. j. Cleeton
was the trial judge.
Appeal was taken from the decree of
the lower court principally upon the
ground of contributory negligence on
the part of the plaintiff who was riding
motorcycle and attempted to cross the
track of South Portland street car,
misjudged the speed of the street car
and collision occurred as result of
which Macchi was injured and brought
suit for damages Exception was taken
to the court s instructions to the Jury
upon the question of whether or not the
plaintiff exercised due care and pru.
dence by not stopping his motorcycle
when he saw the car approaching, and
in passing upon the respective rights of
the parties. Judge Harris further com.
ments:
Right Not Exclusive.
"The right of the defendant to use
the street was not exclusive even if it
be assumed that by reason of the traf.
fie ordinance the car had the right of
way as against the plaintiff. The driver
of vehicle can proceed at a highcross-
ing to go over street railway track in
the face of an approaching car when he
has reasonable ground for believing
that he can pass in safety, if both he
and those in charge of the car act with
due regard to the rights of the others. "
Newberg Wins Water Supply Suit.
In anopinion written by Chief Justice
Moore the supreme court affirmed the
decree of Judge Webster Holmes of the
circuit court for Yamhill county in the
case of George p. Skelton, appellant, VS..
the city of Newberg, in which it held
that all proceedings incident to the con
demnation of us acres of the plain
tiff's land containing a valuable spring
for the purpose of securing u municipal
water supply, were regular and in con
formity to the law and that the award
of $4,000 made by the appraisers of the
property and the court is final and
binding. Plaintiff SHELTON contended
that the land was worth $4,000 and
set up irregularity of the proceedings as
basis for appeal from the Judgment of
the trial court.
Other cases decided by the supreme
court today follows.
Oregon Lumber & Fuel company VS.
May Garland Hall ct AL appellants, ap.
pealed from Multnomah county, suit to
foreclose material man IS lien, opinion
by Justice Mcbride, Circuit Judge Ham.
ilton's judgment for the plaintiff re.
versed.
Elizabeth Wiley VS.. j. J. Whitney ct
al, appellants, appealed from Linn coun.
ty, action for money, opinion modified,
per curiam.
James Il. Stacy VS.. Old Channel Min.
ing company. ct al, appellants appeal.
ed from Josephine county, involving the
right Of a receiver to sell certain prop.
erty of company, opinion by Justice
Bean, judgment Of Circuit Judge
Hawkins for the plaintiff modified.
Petitions for rehearing were denied
in Cody Lumber company VS.. Coach and
Brown vs., Farmers & Merchants Ma.
tional Bank.
Kate Buchanan Cbace, ct al appel.
lants, VS.. Robert b. Graham, ct al; ap.
pealed from Clackamas county; action
to settle an estate; decision Of Judge
Campbell for defendants affirmed
Opinion by Justice Burnett