Evening star., 1932-01-31
BY HARVEY L. COBB.
General Counsel. American Motorists
ASSOClatlOn

Can a motorist operate his car with
out an infraCtiOn Of the law?
The answer is that he could, but
practically every motorist every day Is
law violator violating either cur
rent traffic regulation or some obsolete
law long since forgotten and no longer
enforced.
An illustration of the obsoleScence OF
some of the motor vehicle regulations,
early enacted, is found in two laws still
on the books of the State of Maryland,
one of which requires that moving
object, proceeding on highway, shall DE
preceded at night by a person carrying
a lighted red lantern. A second illus
tration. in the same State, is that an
automobile must blow its horn every
200 feet. Both statutes, still on the
books, were enacted early in the auto
mobiles career.
Interesting Case.
An interesting case, illustrating the
trials and tribulationS OF the early mo-
torists, is found in the Laurel Turnpike
Co. case, which illustrates the an
tipathy and fear which the public IN
general, and toll roao proprietors in
particular, exhibited toward the auto
mobile
The Laurel Run Turnpike Co., operat-
ing a short stretch of toll road, de-
cided that it would not permit automo-
biles to run over the turnpike.
One reason was that the size, speed
and noise of the automobiles OF that
day made it highly dangerous to travel
erS who drove horses. Another reason
was that the pike was constructed eX-
preSSly for the convenience OF morse
drawn vehicles, and in view of its curves
and entertainments, if automobiles were
allowed the effect would be virtually
to exclude horse drawn vehicles. An
other reason was that no possible toll
for automobiles over turnpikeS would De
adequate.
An automobile owner who was eX-
cluded presented a petition for man
damuS, praying the court to compel tne
turnpike company to recognize MS rlgIlI
to use the pike.
A Judge Wheaton, VINO shared the
general feeling Of the owners OF horses
against the new contraption known as
automobiles, presiding over the Circuit
Court at that time, refused the man
damuS and the turnpike company won
a victory. for the time being at least
The grounds on which Judge Whea-
ton placed his decision were to some
extent, at least. highly technical. one
was that the petition failed to set torth
that the plaintiff had complied with all
of the requirements of the Maryland
motor vehicle law of 1908 with relatlon
to license, equipment ana signal device
The courts opinion, which speaks 1ol
itself, was, in part, as follows:
THE effort is to secure a writ OF
peremptory mandamus commanding
the defendant to allow the petitioner
while operating and using his automo'
bile, the right and privilege OF passing
over and upon its turnpike road upon
his paying the tolls established by Ia"
for the passage of vehicles of similar
weight and width of tires over turnpike
roads of this Commonwealth.
THE act of April %, 1903, expressly
forbids the use or operation OF motor
vehicles upon the public highways II
the Commonwealth unless certain re,
ouirements of the act are complied
with
Essential Requirements.
among the requirements esSentla
to the right to use or operate such We
hicles on the highways are % the Is
suance of a certificate, CD the posting
of the same in the motor vehicle, (3)
the posting of the registry number upor
the back of said vehicle in conspicu,
Gus place, a. equipment with brake:
and 80 equipment with signal device
Violation of any of these provisions
of the act is made misdemeanor.
The petition in the case at bar fail'
to aver compliance by the petitionel
with any of the aboVe-enumerated pro-
/ visions.
Alleging his specific right, it was tht
DUTY of the petitioner to aver ever.
element requisite to establish it.
THE failure in this respect would o
itself prevent the issuing of a per
In addition to his, however, plain