The Washington times., 1917-05-26


Agents OF jitney bus corporation
who assisted and abetted its opera
ton without a permit are criminAlly
liable with Il for violating laws 1915,
.. 221, regulating jitney bus traffic.
State v. Collins. l61 p. Cwash.) 4o7.
The negligence OF the driver OF an
automobils in which decedent was
riding when struck by defendants
engine was not imputable to the de-
csdent-Chicago. Indianapolis and
Louisville Railway Company v. Lake
County Savings and Trust Company,
ia N. 2. Ind.) 4b4.
Laws 1918. D.. AT, entitled "An act
relating to and regulating common
carriers OF passengers upon public
streets, roads, and Highways" and
providing for bonding motor vehicles,
does not violate Const. art 2, Z 10.
because not expressing its subject
In its title-State v. Collins, 1e1 p.
(wash.) 467.
Where q jItney bus line contracted
with municipal corporation to
transport passengers between certain
pOAhNos hNl0 Nu1N UuCu lTAuHpOEN1llOnI
was not rendered on behalf OF the
municipal corporation 30 a. TO render
the jitney line exempt from laws
1915, .. 22T.-State v. Collins, 161 P.
CWash.) 461.
Where an automobile driver. Gp-
preaching q grade croPsing, could
have seen the electric car in time to
avoid collision, but, on discovering It,
tried 20 cross In front OF II, and was
struck when the automobile almost
stopped on the track because the
driver gave the engine too much gas
olsne, trying to increase speed. the
driver was contributorily negligent.
and Waterville Street Railway, % A
(Me.) $40.
A crossing collision with an auto
mobile was not due to negligence of
q street railway company where its
electric car, blowing the whistle 400
feet from the crossing. approached
the crossing at about twelve miles
an hour, with the power shut off, and
brakes applied a. soon as the auto
mobile was seen on the crossing
Thompson v. Lewiston, AuEusta and
Wateryille Street Railway, 90 A.
(Me.) $40.
Where. after his employer had left
the city. q chauffeur consulted an
expert repairman a. directed by his
employer, and, while returning to
look for garage keys which he
thought he had lost on such errand,
oolllded whit and injured q pedestrian.
the accident occurred in the scope OF
his employment, although he was in
toxicated at the time, and he had not
In fact lost the keys, but had them
on his person.-Whimster v. Holmes,
100 s. w. (Mo.) 81.
The driver OF an automobile, which
was towing, after dark, and ct slow
speed, another automobile across q
sidewalk into . garage. BY a rope
about twelve feet long and eighteen
inches above the walk, should have
anticipated that persons on the side
walk, waiting for him to pass. would
attempt to cross between the two
machines. and was therefore neHli-
gent in not giving some warning Of
the presence OF the rope. so aS to
render his employer liable for inju-
ries occasioned by tripping over the
rope.-Rapetti v. Peugeot Auto I'm
port Company, 1872 N. Y. S. 133.
In an action for death at q cross
ing an instruction that dOcedent
might assume that defendant would
not operate its train in violation Of
law. and that, II decedent saw the
train approaching and did not know
or could not know that IL was being
operated in violation OF law. SO that