El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1917-08-18


providing that vehicles shall. on all
occasions. travel on the right hand
side Of the street. provides that one
In overtaking and passing another
vehicle shall pass to the left OF such
vehicle and the person in charge of
the vehicle Overtaken shall give way
10 the right, q street car is not p
vehicle as IL cannot give way 10 the
side--Harris vs. Johnson. 16l p. (CaL)
1155-
?. S $3.50 penaliziuE breach Of the
I peace by "tumultuOus and offensive
carriage" covers the case of one run
ming an automobile recklessly and
lriOtously and running into persons on
highway and injuring them, these
words being used with reference 10
the tranquility. sense Of security, and
freedom from bodily harm. which the
state guarantees to its citizens. and
their scope IS not limited by the words
following them IN the statute by
. threatening. QuarrelIuE. challenging.
aSSauluuE. beating or striking an
other persons which ordinarily apply
10 direct personal violence, the rule Of
eJusaem Eeneris not applyins.-State
vs. Boyd. 80 a lNt-1 5l5.
A motorman may, within the lin
its OF reasonable prudence and fair
judgment presume that an adult
either viii not enter the range OF
anger created by an APPROACHING
street car, or that he viii remove
himself or his vehicle therefrOm be-
fore collision Occurs.-Ross VS..
Brannon, % So (Ala-) 439.
In an action for injuries received
when plaintiff was struck by a mo-
tor truck, an instruction that. If
/ when near collision plaintiff jumped
3 from his wagon in front Of the truck.
when II was too near TO stop IL. ne
could not recover. sufficiently COW
cred in that issue.-Eppstein VS.. Rup-
pert, SO A (Md-) SIS.
A municipality cannot escape LA
bility for injuries 10 an automobile
driver when his car ran over an en-
! baukment which was not rallied. on
! the ground that the driver was guilty
| Of cOntributory negligence, in the alb
sence OF conclusive proof that ordi-
nary men would not have acted as he
l did in the premises--Miner VS.. City
Of Franklin, 80 A CN-H) 647.
In action for work and labor under
] agreement 10 put defendants auto
mobile In first class condition no price
/ being fixed, defendant could not set
/ off an amount paid later 10 another
repair man TO complete putting the
car into first class shape, the later
Iservices not being required because OF
I plaintiffs negligence or injury to the
! car--George Irving company vs.
Acunto, 162 s CNY) 91s.
Where a traveller in an automobile
on approaching a street railway was
travelling at such speed that he could
not stop in time TO avoid an ap-
[ preaching street car and attempted
I 10 beat" the street car over the cross
I ing at the point toward which he was
moving, he was guilty Of cOntributO-y
negligence, both IN attempting TO
cross in front Of the car and in ap-
/ preaching at an excessive speed
Ross vs. BrannOnr 70 So. (Ala.) 43q-
In an action against the driver Of
an automobile on account OF personal
injury resulting from a collision al
lowed TO have been due TO excessive
speed and dim light, IL is not error
10 instruct that Il by such driving
the life or limb OF any one were en-
dangered. this constituted negligence
because Of the violation OF the statute
10 eudauger the life or limb Of any
persOn--Fisher VS.. O'Brien, I62 T.
tKanl 81.
Though evidence that defendant
was sole owner OF the automobile
which caused plaintiffs injuries
makes a prima facie case that it was
being operated in his service. a COM
plant, alleging merely that he owned
the automobile and that another who
had charge and control thereof neEli-
gently caused the accident. is INSULT
cient; the issuable fact, which alone
should be alleged, being the agency Of
the person who was operating the
automobile.-Stein vs.. Lyon, 167 ;.
(N-Y) $50.