Norwich bulletin., 1920-07-27
PUTNAM

| In an effort to put check upon au- | tomobile drivers who are persistently
 driving their machines in Putnam and the surrounding towns with headlight
 lenses that do not conform to therequire-
 ments of the state motor vehicle regula- i tons. police dragnet was spread over l the roads leading into Putnam Saturday
 and Sunday nights. As consequence
 of this thirty alleged offenders of the l law were arrested and ordered to appear 1 before Judge Mahlon H. Geissler in the
 Putnam city court Monday morning.
 Twenty-one of these cases were disposed
 Of at that time. while those remaining
 will be heard at, o'clock today Clues day).
 l The roundup of the automobiiists was conducted by Ralph Young of Dan l lelson, deputy automobile inspector of Wlndham county, and assisting him were Sheriff Charles Aver of kiiIingly and Captain of Police John Bulger. The of | f1cers began their work shortly before 8 o'clock Saturday night but were cut short in their plans by thunder storm that drove traffic from the highways. Or Sunday night they began again, and be- cause of the fine weather, many to lrists were passing through this city. Those who had lights upon their machines not on the approved list issued by tlla a,l- tomobile commissioner of tne state were ] be present at the session of the city court on Monday morning. W::; one ex- ; ception, all of those arres ed were leia up because of faulty lights. This soii- tary case was that of Fral< Fernler, O. Putnam, a driver on one of tine pubic service buses that operated be-wee1 this city and Webster, who was charged with overlooking the machine that he Was op- erating.
 PaA nf
 was the first driver to face Judge Geis- sler. He was represented by Attorney John F. Carpenter of Putnam. and en- tered plea of not guilty to operating his machine with faulty headlights on Sat urday night Inspector Young was sworn as witness and testified that Robbins had in his lamps a commercial lens that was not approved by the state authori- ties. This lens, Robbins had painted. The vehicle law states that when lenses are home made and painted, the glass used must be plain. Inspector Young told the court that painting an unap proved lens, not of plain glass, did not cover the law. MT. Robbins stated to the court that he had supposed that in painting one-haf of the glass in his headlights he was complying with the regulations. In reading the regulation during the session of the court, Judge Geissier found that in the list of ap- proved devices for headlights it stated that home made lenses which were paint ed would pass inspection. The fact that the glass to be used must be plain glass was not mentioned in this list, but came in another part of the regulations. Talk
 ing this fact into consideration. Judge Geissler stated that he felt that Robbins had done his best to comply with the law and because of this, found him not guilty.
 John ". LaFaIIe of Putnam was also represented by Attorney Carpenter. His case was identical with Robbins and Judge Geissler found him not guilty.
 Harold F. Putnam, of Worcester pleaded guilty to violation of the head light regulations. He told the cours fe had been driving his car with plain glass in the lights for four years. and had never been stopped before. He paid fine of $10 and costs of $10.14.
 William E. Conrad, of East Douglas, and Levader E. Browning of Rochdale, Mass. each pleaded guilty to violation of the law. and were fined $10 with costs taxed at S10.14. Both paid
 Two of the drivers who were in court were minors, and entered their pleas through a temporary guardian, Peter A. Gardner. Through MT Gardner. Mar cisse Omer Guertin of Putnam, and Fe- Iix Brisbois of Webster each pleaded guilty to the charges made. Both claim ed they had read the motor vehicle laws, but didn't understand the parts relating to headlights and dinners. They paid the minimum fine of s10 and costs, in each case amounting to s1o14.
 4 group of drivers whose homes were in Rhode Island escaped more easily than the drivers who claimed Massa- chusetts and Connecticut as their resi- dence. The regulations of Connecticut and Rhode Island are not uniform, and many lenses that will pass inspection in the state to the eastward will not have the approval of the Connecticut authori- ties. In disposing of most of these Rhode Island cases. Judge Geissler took this lack of uniformity into considera- ton. John W. Logan of Pawtucket was the first from that state to appear be- fore the court. He pleaded guilty to driving his car with plain glass in his headlights. He told the court that his lights were legal in his home state and that he had supposed that automobile regulations were everywhere the same. He said he had been in Connect gut but once before and did not realize that spe- cial laws were in force here.
 Judge Geissler asked Inspector Young whether or not he thought that under such circumstances, and in view of the lack of uniformity, a first offence snould be punished. MT. Young was 'ncltne,l 10 believe that there was no excuse for driv- ing with plain glass lights. since Rhode Island was one of the few states that permitted this, and most people were aware of this fact. He further brought out the fact that the Connecticut regula- tions had been widely advertised in the neighboring commonwealth. While con- ceding Mir. Young's point of view, Judge Geissler said he was not disposed to treat so severely those drivers who were not aware of the strict regulations in Con necticut. but who had complied with all the requirements of their native states, thus showing that they were trying to obey the law as they knew it. He sug- gested that the prosecuting attorney nsnfaF n~ EnnI nA...I..