The Detroit times., 1915-11-30


local OFFICIALS have never heard OF
conviction being obtained any
where in the state. Tie principal
reason seems TO be that the criminal
code has never been brought down
10 meet present day requirements in
the way OF traffic. IL has been
amended 10 cover the carrying of
weapons and several things like
that but takes no cognizsnce OF the
motor car in the streets.
Take the case OF John Dreayer,
who drove his furniture truck on
the wrong side Of a street car at
rrumbull and Abbott and killed
boy. The jury in the inquest which
vas held declared the boy came to
his death by being struck by truck
driven by Dreaver, but declared
Dreaver had no criminal intent.
A prosecution will probably follow
rs soon as the evidence il written
up, but there is little likelihood of
Dreaver getting any punishment
greater than the prosecution Of the
case will prove, because the SUI
preme court has declared itself in
no uncertain terms on the matter OF
criminal intent in manslsughter
cases.
The most recent and most COM
plete exposition OF the attitude of
the courts in such cases came in the
case OF William G.. Barnes. young
man. who on May 27, 1911. struck
girl named Mary Robb on East Mich
igan-nye.. in Lansing. between the
city proper ard the Agricultural col
lege. The evidence in the case
showed that Ii was daylight, clear
day and a clear road, that the car
could be seen approaching for a half
mile or more, that Barnes. in the
car saw the girl and sounded his
horn, but continued to drive in such
manner that when the girl disre-
garded the signal and stepped into
the road, although there was plenty
OF room left for him TO swing out
and pass her, he struck her. She
died of her injuries and Barnes was
charged with granddaughter,
In the trial OF the case Barnes.
like most other drivers who have
accidents, testified that be was go
ing very slowly when the girl step
ped into his path so suddenly he
could not get away from her. but
other witnesses said he was driving
20 miles an hour or better and with
care could have avoided the girl.
The jury believed the other witness
es and found Barnes guilty
The supreme court reversed the
decision and In the decision, writ
ten by Justice MacAlvay and con-
Cured in by Justices Brooke, Kuhn,
Bird, Moore and Steere, Justice Os-
trander not sitting. making IL unan-
imous decision OF all the justices
who heard the case, the following
declaration Is made;
"Tn this case, In order to warrant
the conviction OF the respondent II
should have clearly appeared that
Mary Robb's death ensued as di-
rect and natural result OF the reck-
less or gross negligence OF the re-
spondent. The crime sought to be
proven was involuntary homicide,
caused by culpable negligence. and
to make an act carelessly performed
resulting in death criminal one the
carelessness must have been gross.
implying an Indifference to conse-
quences which may ensue and in
different TO the rights of others that
is equivalent to a criminal intent"
The Job of proving that the motor
ist who gets careless In his driving
is guilty OF disregard of conse-
quences and Indifference to the
rights Of others that is equivalent to
criminal intent. Is one which has
always stuck the prosecuting OFF,
GERS. Since the automobile came into
general use on the streets there
have been about a dozen prosecu-'
tions for manslaughter based on
street accidents. In three or four
of these cases the Judge has inter
vened and directed q verdict for the
defense. the rest have gone to juries
and verdict or mot guilty" render
cd In each one. The two best known
cases are the one where Irwin
Scrimger killed an old man named
Simon r. Rote some years ago. Here
the case was taken from the jury by
Judge Connolly and a verdict for