The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1920-03-12
lRACTION ENGINES
CAN USE ROADS
,prf JUDGE THOMAS RULES ON CASE.
'r "% rHBlsHFRMAN AGAINST BAUGHM4A.

~, of the most important opinions
UnT handed down, that is Of import-
ever to the farmers of the State was
ancs bv Chief Judge William H. ;
nom gomas Saturday in the case OF Ar
inU L"r stevenson VS.. E. Austin Raugh- I
Inul commissioner of; Motor We
i!aioc nan, This case was tried before
I"ISp IDjSe Thomas few weeks ago in this
cnupt SauT The opinion in part is as fol
. lows:
.,a farmers they serve, represent
,mp of the best citizens of our State,
sSan sSar whom no one could be more con-
..rned or interested in the .preserya-
.nr nj good roads, which have now
sscon,e a public necessity, and on the
thor hand the State officials charged
nth the responsible duty of con-
sucting and maintaining the public
Fchways, can have no other interest
tbe matter than a desire to protect
4pm from unnecessary injury, and
9erp would seem to be no reason why,
With cooperation, d satisfactory So
I,top of the difference may not be
Z tund
There was also a great deal of evil
duce bv the plaintiff and by the de-
pDdant as to the amount of injury to
the road caused by the plaintiffs en-
zine orior to his arrest and trial be-
fire the Police Justice. Upon all the
Evidence it is at least doubtful wheth-
er the injury described by some of
+ the Witnesses could have been caused
wholly by the plaintiffs engine, but
in the view the Court takes of this
case that question is not involved or
nOw before it.
Chapter eighty-five of the Acts
Of 1918, vests the Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles with certain discretion
in the revocation of registration and
markers, which discretion he has the
authority to exercise, but what the
Court decided in passing on the de-
murrer to the bill was that the Stat
ute recognized the right of persons
engaged in the threshing business to
operate their traction engines over the
State roads, and under the State of
facts alleged in the bills the discre-
ton vested in the Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles by the Statute did not
n include the authority to revoke plain
tf'S certificate of registration and
markers solely because the wheels of
bis engine had cleats >en them or the
tires were not smooth.
When the Act of 1918, which
mOgnized the right of persons
agaged in the threshing business to
ggate their traction engines over the
SaF roads, was passed, the Legisla-
tUe must have known that traction
engines used in their business, or at
State, had cleats on their wheels, and
must also have known that they could
not be operated over the State roads
Without causing some injury to them.
"hen, therefore, section 145 of that
ACT authorized the Commissioner OF
HOtOr Vehicles to revoke the markers,
&c. when the motor vehicle is $50
constructed or operated as to cause
unreasonable damage to the public
highways" the legislature could not
nave referred to the universal or usual
and we'll known construction of such
traction engines with cleats on their
"Aeels. A different construction of
SVcuon l45 would reduire the Court to
assume that the Legislature intended
/" autlOrize the Commissioner of Mo
VT vehicles to take away the very
llgN that the Legislature had not
onE expressly recognized and sane
aOled, but also encouraged by relieV-
tls the owners of such engines of the
DIden imposed upon the owners of
Oler motor vehicles.
lle Court must not however, be un-
eiStOOd as meaning to restrict the
%Scretlon and power of the Commis
f"aer OF Motor Vehicles, beyond the
lnl hereln expressly stated. The Leg
la'ufe has conferred upon him broad
O"erS and discretion deemed neces-
#a'y for the preservation of the pub
highways of the State, and the
e'y OF those using them, and the
UltS nave no power to either quail
VI enlarge them. There might be
Ttlon engines, or other motor We
stoS' or cleats on them, of such un-''
St.,, uai, extraordinary or peculiar con-
ueUon, or their condition might
such' as to cause unreasonable
mage to, and warrant their exclu-
IO~ u from the public highways, and
u'S OF equity would have no power
sontrol or restrain the authority
ae Commissioner of Motor We
les !. IN regard to them.
h.. ~ lOlIows from what has been said
hoy the conclusion of this Court is
Aloia perSonS in the business that
4 isin tbo IS engaged in, have the right,
ratO I' conduct of such business, to op-
IoaS. tnelr engines over the State.
rsti sGS' and that certificates of regis
nsa. Ou and markers for their engines
oo1g aSeG can not be revoked simply and
N ~, because the engines have cleats
g,ooS Sr Wneels, and as counsel have
s6an hail. mat the decree of the Court
n fl. not be controlled or affected
rne me iact that the PLAINTIFFS license
nhers noahers here in question expired
reatooeSemoer, 1919, the injunction
II = granted must be continued.
ay 20 % ordered and decreed this 9Th
Eourt ,ol Iareh, 1920, by the Circuit
Conn., tor Carroll County, sitting as
eretos. OF Equity, that the Injunction
md e tbo granted in this case be,
etual =. same is hereby, made per-
qstin pu p tnat the said defendant, E.
iutor W vbaaghman, Commissioner of
erDssramal be and he is hereby, (,
hn FNeudliy enininnd from ..nrro1ri,,or o.