The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-01-29

approach Of an automobile. third
person who was passing az the time
grabbed the reins, causing the horse
TO fall into a ditch at the side OF the
road. The vehicle TO which the horse
was attached was overturned and the
occupants injured, There WAS evil
dence OF negligence on the part OF the
motoTist, and the question in the case
was whether the motorist was legally
liable for the accident. The court de-
cided that he was. although the imme-
date cause of the overturning OF the
vehicle was the well-intentioned but
ill-directed effort OF the third person.
In an Alabama case IL was claimed
that an automobile accident was due
to the intoxicated condition OF the mo-
torist. Called as a witness, he was
asked how many drinks he had had,
and what he had been drinking. lie
refused TO answer these questions on
the ground that his answers might In
crlminate him. The court sustained
him In this refusal.
IL Is now well established that un-
der prohibition laws an automobile
used unlawfully for the transportation
OF liquor IL not subject TO condemna-
ton. IL IL belongs to someone other
than the driver who used IL as indi-
Gated provided the real owner had no
knowledge OF the unlawful use I'm
tended to be made OF IL. In a recent
Alabama case In which this principle
was involved, the State contended that
a conclusive inference OF guilty knowl-
edge should be drawn from the fact
that the owner assisted in the defense
of the driver during his trial for I'M
lawfully transporting the liquor. The
court refused TO apply this view and
declared the machine exempt.
A recent Texas case supports the
prevailing view that the negligence
of the driver OF a car In entering upon
a railroad crossing without first look
ing both ways for approaching trains
does not bar suit for damages
against the railroad company by other
occupants of the car II collision
with a train occurs. That is to say,
! IL the trainme1 failed TO give the Gus
tomary warnings, or were otherwise
guilty of negligence, the occupants
OF the car have a claim for their in
juries. although the driver of the car
is barred from suing by reason of his
own concurring negligence.
A verdict against Kansas city was
sustained in recent decision OF the
Missouri Court OF Appeals where IL
was shown that an automobile ran
into an unlighted pile OF lumber at
night just after turning at a street in
tersection.
Circumstantial evidence, mute but
convincing, was the undoing OF "a mo-
| torist In recent suit in Georgia for
the condemnation OF an automobile
alleged to have been unlawfully used
to transport liquor. The supreme
court, epitomizing the facts, decided
that evidence that an automobile Is
found disabled and partially wrecked
in a public roai. that the inside of the
automobile is wet and saturated with
a liquid that smells strongly OF corn
whiskey, that there is found near the
automobile on the side of the road
under wire fence an imprint of n
keg, and close thereby in the pushes
several kegs are found. one of which
contains liquid. and all smelling
strongly OF corn whiskey, is sufficient
to warrant the inference that the au-
tomobile was engaged in transporting
intoxicating liquors along the public
road. contrary to law"
a joint verdict of granddaughter
Danion was sustained in recent
North Carolina case. involving the
death of n child through reckless
driving. Apparently the driver was
being instructed in driving by the
other, but in any event ii appeared
that the latter approved of and en-
couraged the drivers reckless con-
duct.
Is taNicab public conveyance
provided by a common carrier for pas
senger service?" This was the ques-
ton involved in a recent New York
case in which a person was injured
when alighting from taxicab. He
was insured under a policy which pro-
vided for double indemnity in the
event of an injury occurring while in
vehicle of the character described
by the quoted words. The court of