The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-08-25
MUST HAVE TAG on Cln| !
EVEN when TRYING 0UI
Refusing Appeal, Supreme Court o.
holds Accomac Court in Filming Man
Who Failed to Show Number Plato.
WAS FINED $40 AND COSTS
Not the Amount Involved, But the
Principle, Makes Case Of Interest," %
All Auto Owncrs-Thrcc Other Pc
titions Are Turned Down.

Not even to "try out" car IL Il
lawful for an automobile owner to
run 1t without exhibiting the number
plate, showing he has paid his auto.
mobile license tax.
This was decided yesterday by the
State Supreme Court OF Appeals. into
which J. Floyd Mock. of Accomac
County. carried his grievance against
the Circuit Court of Accomac County,
in which. on June II last, he was
fined $40 and costs for operating an
automobile without showing his mum.
Der plate, The Appeals Court refused
his application for a new trial of the
case. Three other petitions were re-
fused.
1t appears that Mr.. Mock on April l.
last ran his car over the Accomac
County highways without having q
license tag attached. He was reported
or arrested, the grand jury heard wit
nesses and returned an Indictment
against him. and the trial Jury found
him guilty of violation of law and
assessed him for $40 fine and costs.
Not because of the punishment, the
penalty inflicted. but because OF the
principle involved. Mr.. Mock appealed.
Taken Out After Oyerhauling.
He set forth the circumstances ana
contended that the law had not beer,
designed to cover such cases as his,
and asked the court to require this
Accomac Circuit Court to give him an
other trial.
Mr.. Mock asserts In his petition to-
the Supreme Court that his automo.
bile had been undergoing an over
hauling and repairs, and that the
young man who was doing the WORK
| took him out in 1t to TRY It Out. =
They rode but short distance. The
car was then put away. and II was
not until April rs. when the car was
In perfect state of repair. that Il
was again used.
Other Appeals Refused.
| Other appeals refused were:
That of the Norfolk and Western
Railway, aggrieved in the Nottoway
Court, which gave verdict against
the company In favor OF j. NJ. and
J. N. Page. who sued because q frame
| factory had been destroyed in q firo
alleged to have been started by sparks
from the engine Of train on June
| 3, 1914. The case was thrice tried.
| Verdfcts for the plaintiffs were award
ed on the first and third trials and
the Jury disagreed on the second The
final verdict was for 1925 against the
railway company.
That of the city of Lynchburg. an.
pealed from the Circuit Court Of
Lynchburg, in which the city was sued
for damages by the Lynchburg Trace
ton and Light Company and N. j.
Floyd. The case involved the removal
OF tracks from a certain street, after
annexation OF a section to which the
county supervisors had given street
car service by the awarding of fran.
chfse to the company.
That of o. Emmerson Smith, Eliza
beth c. McAlpine. 8. Dorsey Sydnor. a
administrator OF Clarence E. SydnoP.
with the will annexed; Grace g.
Broaddus and ]. Frederick Niemyer,
who declared themselves aggrieved
by entry in the Chancery Court Of
Richmond OF final decree May 8. 1915,
in the pending. under the style OF o..
f. Smith ct al. against Martha e..
Smiths executor ct al. in which petit
TONERS were plaintiffs. The matter
involves the will of grandfather Of
the plaintiffs. William C. Smith, who
died in Baltimore In February. 1850.