The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-11-04
NOT LIABLE IF
 SON TAKES AUTO
 WITHOUT LEAVE
sJudge Scott So Holds In Case Where McNamara Boy
 Killed Horse.

That a, father cannot be held. in i damages for the negligence of his minor son while operating an auto mobile belonging to the father, when the automobile was being used for the sons own pleasure. is decision made by Judge Scott in the Common Pleas Court
 The action was that of A1anson fC. Dixon of Stamford, vs-~ Thomas J. McNamara,i of 1719 Noble Avenue, this city. The case was tried before jury and all day was spent by the plaintiff in presenting hissss evidence as to the neghgencd of MT. McNa- narass son in Running the automobile. The plaintiff sued to recover 5000 Afor valuable horse, which was killed as result of being struck by the de- fendant's automobile at Greenwich, in September 1914
 MT and Mrs. Dixon testified that they were driving across the Boston the defendAnts automobile driven by his minor son, crashed into the shaft and horse, breaking the horses leg and necessitating the shooting of the animal.
 They claimed that the automobile was being operated at a high rate of speed, and that the fault was en- Hrely With the driver of the auto mobile
 MT. Dixon claimed that the horse was a standard bred horse, and that his brother-in-law hadAApaid $1O00 for it. MT. Dixon testified that at the time of the accident the horse was worth at least $500.
 James Chambers, a horseman of Sanford, testified that the horse was worth at least $500. Several other witnesses supported MT. Dixon in re- gard to his claim as to the negligence of the defendants son.
 Atethe close of the plaintiffs case. Attorney CuIinan, for the defendant, moved for a non-suit on the ground that a parent is not legally liable for the negligence of his child, and that the plaintiff had not shown by any evidence that the defendants son was acting as the agent or servant of the defendant. at the time of the accf- den. alth ough the plaintiffs complaint alleged that the son was at the time of the occurrence, the agent of his father.
 Attorney Cu1Hnan argued that the only fact shown was that the father owned the automobile, and this was not sufficient to raise an implication of agency. Attorney Lockwood, for the plaintiff, opposed the motion for a non-suit, and contended that when he had established the fact that the father was the owner of the autOmO- bile, and that it was being driven by his minor son, this was enough to
 
 From these facts, he said, the law would presume that the boy was the agent of his father and that it would then be the duty of the father to prove to the jury that he son was no his agent at the time of the cident -
 Judge Scott, in passing upon the motion, said it might possibly be wise to have a law along the lines con tended by Attorney Lockwood, but, in the absence of a statute. it was not the law of this state. and the father could not be held responsible merely because he owned the machine with which the damage was done- He, therefore, granted the motion for a non-suit and dismissed the case. Cummings & Lockwood, of Stam- ford, represented the plaintiff, and CuIlinan 6 CuI1inan of this city, the defendAnfe