The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1917-06-09

II the driver of an automobile,
going in the same direction as a street
car, suddenly turns in front of it and
without warning attempts to cross
the track, and a collision results, he
lie negligent.-Regsn v. John l. Kelly
Contracting Company. ia N. Z.
(MaEs.l 726.
Where, upon payment of a theft pol
icy. the owners interest in a stolen
automobile Is assigned, and a bill of
sale Of the car made, to the insurance
company, the latter may appear as
claimant upon sequestration of the
utomobile.-Dawedof V. Hooper. 100
S. W. (Texasl b22.
II q driver of an automobile truck
in crossing q street from an alleyway
gave no signal after leaving the ALLEY
TO avoid an approaching street car, he
was negligent-Regan V. John L.
Kelly Contracting Company, ia N. E.
(Mass.) 72s.
The owner of an automobile who
was not present at the infection of the
injury cannot be held liable except It
be shown that the person in charge was
not only the agent of the owner, but
was at the time engaged in the busi-
ness OF his master.-Gordon " Texas
q Pacinc Mercantile and Manufactur-
ing Company, 100 S. W. (Tsxasl T4S.
Where on the day OF an accident a
truck driver was directed by the su-
perintendent to dump a load in a lot
hack of some houses on an alleywsy,
and on returning from such errand
and on his way to the garage he
struck a street car, there was suf-
hcient evidence that. he was acting
within the scope Of his employment
Regain v. John L. Kelly Contracting
Company. ia n. E. (Mass.) 72e.
While authority to use an automo-
bile in exceptional ways might be i'm
piled by circumstances which would
warrant the inference that the EN-
ployer knew of such uses. the commit
ment of a car to the custody and con
troll OF an employe for the special pur-
pose OF delivering merchandise would
not alone authorize the conclusion
that the employe was at liberty to
use the car for other purposes.-Gor-
don v. Texas and Pacific Mercantile
and Manufacturing Company, 100 s.
W. CTexasl T4S.
In an action for the conscious suf.
fering and death OF plaintiffs in
testate, when he fell from his motor
cycle, and was struck and killed by
defendants automobile. evidence that
defendants manager had Instructed
an employe to teach another employee
to drive the automobile and the acct
dent occurred while they were return
ing from dinner and while the other
employe was driving under the first
employees Instructions, warranted
finding that the accident happened
while defendants servants were en- I
gagged in its business within st. 1907, !
C. 3I5, 1. providing for the recovery |
of damages for death caused by the |
OF corporations or of their |
v. New England |
Cooperative Society, ia N. E (MAss.)
T4s.
In an action for injuries caused by |
automobile driven by its |
employee, where there was no evidence |
Of iHcompetency or rscklsssness OF |
the driver or knowledge on the part |
OF the defendant of such incom-
potency, an instruction that. IL de
owned the automobile and |
the driver had been employed rsgu-
larly and was incompetent or reckless. |
and the incompetency or recklessness I
was known to defendant, and the !
driver was thereafter given control of !