The Washington times., 1920-12-04
Latest Decisions and Legal Points For Auto Owners

ugently cut across the corner OF the
lnteTsecting street WAS not contrib
uting cause OF the collision. but m
appears from the evidence. whs J
disconnected therefoTm. Clearly he
was where he had q right TO be and
where. but for the fact that defend
ants were on the wrong side OF the
street and travelling an an unlawful
rate OF speed. the collision would not
disconnected theretrom. Clearly he
have occurred.
One of the ever.growing number OF
collisions between trains and auto
mobiles at railroad crossings Is dealt
with In a recent Federal case decided
In Iowa. The case was claim for
damages by an injured motorist. His
claim was based on the alleged fail
uTc OF an oncoming train TO give the
customary warnings as ID approached
tho crossing. The railroads defense
Was that. granting the motorists
claim. the accident could not have
happened II the mOtprist had followed
the "stop, look and listen" rule be-
fore entering upon the crossing. Ia
rendering Judgment In the railroads
favor, the court gave the following
definition OF the rule referred to:
"rhe duty To stop liz relative one.
II depends upon the situation of the
particular case. the knowledge the
traveller has of the situation. and the
=, Glance he may reasonably place
under the circumstances on his OPP
port unities for seeing and hearing
without taking the last precaution
Of stopping. The authorities are
quite In accord on the proposition
that, II the View Is unobstructe ed so
that an approaching train, before IL
reaches the crossing, can be seen,
there Is no occasion for special
exercise of the sense OF hearing.
listening, and therefore there Is no
reason why he should stop for that
purpose. on the other hand, IL the
view is obstructed. interfering with
the sense of sight. then he must bring
into requistion the sense or list tening
carefully and attentively: and II there
is any noise or confusion over which
he has control. such as that Of the
noise Of the horses feet. or the grind
ing sound Of the wheels. or the
ordinary noise OF the vehicle. inter-
i"ring with the acutenrss OF the
sens" OF hearing. 1t Is his duty 10
gt0p such noise or interfering OBJ
structiOn and listen for the train be-
fore going upon the track"
\ case just decided in a Federal
court in Pennsylvania seems To be
the first judicial construction OF the
provisions OF the National Prohibl-
ti"n Act relating to the forfeiture Of
an automobile used for the unlawful
transportation of liquor. The car in
this case had been loaned by the
owner to a friend. The latter was
arrested for using the car To trans
port liquor. and was convicted. Ac-
,.AviipU fn hn nytdanHa the
Of the car had no knowledge OF the
unlawful use intended to be made
Of IL. The Federal prosecutor never
theIcss insisted that the car was sub
jrct 70 fOrfeitur" by the government
His contention was based on the fact
that tn" forfeiture provisions OF the
law contain no exceptions in favor OF
innocent owners in such cases. The
court refused to construe the law
hat way. L. said:
The adm ted facts in the present
asv show ownership and want of
.ruWiedGc on the part OF the vehicles
'wnrrs as to the purpose for which
"" vehicle was to be employed.
Without any other attending circum-
tanCos. This Is sufficient to warrant
Ne court to order its return. IL
hight be otherwise if, from the repu-
alton of the person intrusted with
he vehicle or other circumstances at
ending his occupation or employ
lcnt. the Inference would arise that
he owners had reason to suspect that
heir property might be used for the
purpose il was employed"
4 recent decision OF the Court OF
Appeals OF the District of Columbia
holds that chauffeur who drove two
women across the Potomac to Il point
n Virginia for the purpose--known
to him--or enabling them TO meet
men for immoral purposes, was guilty
Of violating the Federal white slave
law.