Norwich bulletin., 1922-05-29
PUTNAM

If any resident had needed the accom-
mediation Of q public service automobile |
between and 10 o'clock Saturday morn
ing he would have found the stand at the |
railroad station deserted. Every taximan
in Putnam was in the city court. inter-
ested spectators of the case Of Eli Van
gel, arrested on charge Of breaking the
so-called iitney law. Four men who
called themselves special agents of the
Connecticut company came to Putnam
last week and on their own admission In
court their purpose was. if possihia, to
get some of the local public service driv-
ers to infringe the law. They obtained
what they believed to be sufficient evil
dence in several cases and laid 1t before
the prosecuting attorney. Instead OF sum-
moning all the drivers into court, one was
selected ana the hearing was admittedly
a test case for the purpose of getting .
ruling from the court In the matter.
The so-csMed special agents Of the
trolley company working in and for the
interests Of the company to try and get
evidence to convict the taximen, gave the
names of j. Malone. James Maroney. G..
r. FAR and S. A. Downs. Their tAsti-
mony in substance was that Malone and
Maroney went to the railroad station and
asked to be taken to Dayville. As soon
as they boarded the car Of the defendant,
u. y. r
| and S. A. Downs. appeared and asked to
| be taken along. The defendant took them
all to their destination and left them
Each passenger paid the defendant so
cents.
! On cross examination by Attorney A. S.
| Macdonald, counsel for the defendant,
each of the witnesses admitted that his
purpose in coming to Putnam was to see
II any of the public service drivers were
breaking the law. All admitted that so
far as they knew no complaints that the
law was being broken had been made.
1t was anticipated by the defendant
| and his counsel that the states claim
was to be based on the fact that each
passenger paid so cents. The defendant
took the stand on his own behalf and
admitted all that had been testified to by
the trolley company's special agents, ex-
cept that defendant testified he was ap-
preached by the first two men and asked
how much it would cost to be taken t.
Dayville. The answer to this was 1.-TWO
dollars The men then boarded the cal
and asked the defendant to wait a min.
ute, saying two more were coming. The
two other special agents then appeared
and asked if they could go along ant
were allowed to do so.
/ Based on this testimony, It was claim
. ed by the representatives of the trolle,
company that the defendant broke the sit
i ney law because he received and dis
charged passengers "indiscriminately
a Defendants counsel argued at som
length, prefacing his remarks by sayinj
: that anything he might say was not to b
E in any way taken as a reflection on tn
/. prosecution, but that he might say some
i thing that would reflect upon some Q
( those concerned. He then scored III
!, trolley company and alluded to the Who'll
2 proceeding in trying to trick law-abidin
1 public service automobile drivers into
technical breach Of the law az one Of tn
most despicable proceedings that he ha
ever heard of in the city court He sal
. that the trolley company was not seekin
= to enforce any law for the good of tn
y public at large but only for its own seifs
. ends. He thought if the defendant wa
9 guilty that these men who had tried |
g fnveigle the defendant into breaking II
,e law were guilty as conspirators in ths
+ they were doing it for a private purpos
nj But, the defendants counsel argued, IL
j. law upon which the charge was base
/ intends to affect drivers Of automobile
a who cover q fixed route. That the ter
If fixed route" is found throughout IL
whole law and that the law should l
N taken as whole, not a phrase of 1t s.
nj lected on which to predicate charge.
le The matter finally developed into g
informal discussion Of the situation, ii
Is prosecutor stating that he hoped Il
n courts decision ON the whole matt
might be obtained, as he had other sir
ID liar cases from the same source.
y. Judge Geissler gave his opinion tn
RI there was no evidence that the defenda,
n had run over a regular route or ''b
y, tween fixed termini'' Neither did he Co
slider receiving several passengers at on
as constituted operating an automobile
o as to afford a means Of transportatit