Evening star., 1937-04-06
LAWYER ATTACKS
CONFUSING SIGNS
IN PARKING FIGHT.
Removal Recommended in
Brief Filed by c. H..
Doherty.
CHARGE is ANSWERED
BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Notices Erected Under Authority
Given Commissioners,
Nelson Says.

Removal of confusing" no-parking
signs was recommended in a brief
filed today with Police Court Judge
John P. Mcmahon by Cornelius H.
Doherty, an attorney, in his fight
against a ticket received on Vermont
avenue for violating sign reading no
parking to corner"
Doherty's brief stated many signs
designed to regulate parking are
placed in a manner that confuses
motorists. He said they should be
removed and others erected under
authority of the Commissioners.
At the time the question was raised,
Judge Mcmahon said he wanted plen-
ty of time to consider it, because hun
dreds OF signs and many miles OF
streets were affected.
Commissioners Right Cited.
In another brief, filed by Assistant
Corporation Counsel George D. Neil
son, it is held that the signs attacked
by Doherty were erected in accord
ance with an act of Congress giving
the Commissioners the right to pro-
mulgate regulations dealing with
traffic.
Dohertys car was parked on the
curb side of sign prohibiting parking
to the corner of K street on Vermont
avenue. The sign, it was testified at
the hearing, is 48 feet from the inter-
section and the rear of Doherty's car
was 80 feet from the corner. giving a
leeway several feet over the general
regulation prohibiting parking less
than Is feet from any corner.
The defendant contends in his brief
that the signs all carry the notation
by order Of the Police Department, u
while all authority to regulate traffic
was specifically designated to the
Commissioners, hence all signs should
contain by order of the Commis-
sioners of the District Of Columbia. u
Contention of Doherty.
Under the traffic act, Doherty con-
tends, the Commissioners are per-
mitted to promulgate reasonable reg
ulations for the handling of traffic
but these must be published in 4 daily
newspaper for 10 days before they be-
come effective. There has been M
regulation published with respect tc
parking In general, except on certain
streets, Of which Vermont avenue l.
not one, Doherty charges.
The Districts brief was pre-
pared by Nelson after Rice Hooe
assistant corporation counsel in charge
OF the Police Court Office, announced
his belief that Doherty's claims were
correct. Hooe stated he would not file
an answering brief.
Corporation Counsel Elwood H. Seal
backed by Traffic Director William
A. Van Duzer, however, demanded
that the case be fought, it was learned
today.
The principal claim of the District
Is that the general erection of traffic
regulatory signs was properly author.
lied when the Commissioners pub
lshed the authority under which they
are given control over parking.
It is claimed in the Government
brief that Congress could not have
contemplated publication Of inten.
ton TO erect all parking signs and at
what points, since this would be an
endless procedure.
Arguments on the briefs will be held
before Judge Mcmahon ON April 10, at
which time he is expected to rule on
the question of whether the greater
number of signs in the District have
been erected illegally.