New Britain herald., 1921-07-30
THE JITNEY DECISION.

morning that had it not been for the previous operation of g. jitney lina over the route taken by the man charged with violation of the jitney act. there would have been some question as to whether the act had been violated.
 In other words the court held that the unmistakable spirit of the law had been violated.
 It appears also that if the driver had picked up no one who had not called him up by phone or otherwise and requested transportation from and to certain points, there would have been no conviction.
 The facts showed, according to the only interpretation of the ruling pos sible, that the driver was doing just what the law was aimed to prevent, no matter what was the first reason for his appearance on the street.
 Judge Klett made it plain that he had nothing to do with the jitney law other than to interpret it. One is inclined to feel that he almost apologized for it. As a judge he was forced to interpret it as his knowl- edge of law in general forced him to do. As an individual ho knows un- doubtedly, as most of us know, the need of jitneys in this city, and G. w K1ett, New Britainite, was un- doubtedly sorry that Judge Klett, of f1cially, felt obliged to decide as he did.
 There is no question but that each individual case of the sort would have to be decided on the facts of that particular case. The defendants in these cases do not wish to be allow ed to run cars occasionally, but rath- CT to be allowed to run regularly. If they run regularly. over certain route, they come within the prohibi- ton of the law.
 Another man might be driving his car and pick up some person along the street, might receive pay for transporting that person to the cen ter, and still be held innocent of vio- lating the law.
 But no man would care to make a test case of such transaction, for he would gain nothing were he to be held innocent. The moment he be- gan to make a practice of doing this thing, and the moment it could be shown to the court that he did this thing every day and many times a day. he would be held to have been violating the law.
 Much as one dislikes the decision r+much as the judge who rendered ii probably is sorry that he felt obliged to so decide-it is believed the deci- sion is in accordance with the law the law which has brought such dis .tress to many New Britain people.
 But it is predicted that New Britain will not be without better transpor. Utilities commission has failed utter Ely to see our predicament, or, if see. ling it, to help us in 1t. It is possible but not probable, that after further hearing in the fall the commission may grant further relief. 1t is pos eible that such pressure may b. Drought upon the commission through the city, at the request of which thu t71earing will be held. and through it citizens, that the commission will b, forced to grant relief. It is possible that some ingenious mind may de v.-e some way of transporting peo pie that will not be violation 0 the law.
 But the probability is that the ap peal to the superior court will fail ol the facts presented today.
 The constitutionality of the lay might be tested in another action The legislature might possibly b mode to alter the law, but that pros pect is far distant
 Meanwhile the people of New Brit ain must suffer
 The sole remaining hope, slim as i is. rests in the fall hearing practical promised by the commission
 Every citizen of New Britain wh feels the necessity for better trans portation service here. and cheape should go on record in some way ths the evidence may be presented to tn commission in documentary form, nc that there is great hope that it wi change the decision of the commi: sion, but in order that such docr basis for an appeal from the dec sion of the commission and ma show, in the most emphatic manne that the jitney, under present cond ttons, is an absolute necessity for tn