The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-08-17

on the ground that the plaintiff, a resident of New Hampshire, had al- ready exfatlsed the statutory 30-day driving privilege and failed to cb- tain the special permit required by Massachusetts motor vehicle laws.
 The decision is regarded here as revolutionary, since 1t reverses past rulings of the Massachusetts motor vehicle registrar who has frequently held that if the 30-day privilege is not exhausted at one time, the non- resident was entitled to a further 30-day period during which he might drive without special permit.
 In the case in question, the plain tiff, one Philip English of Manches- ter, N. H., and a salesman, was found to have driven his car in the Bay State at least one hundred days in the aggregate, though not for any continuous period of 30 days without leaving the Commonwealth.
 His machine figured in an accident in Boston with a car operated by one Solomon Blacher and in a suit brought by him to recover damages of $325 in the Hub City's Municipal Court, Judge Donovan found him to have been a trespasser on the streets of Boston an dhence without right in court.
 "The only question to decide Justice Rugg asserts in his opinion" is whether, as a matter of law, the automobile of the plaintiff was @ trespasser upon the highway"
 He then observes that the relevant facts to show it was a trespasser, were that English's car was regis tered in New Hampshire and not in Massachusetts; that 1t had been operated more than the statutory period of 90 days on the highways of Massachusetts and that neither English, the operator, nor his father the owner, had ever applied for or obtained "the permit for operation in this Commonwealth by non-resi- dents"
 The statute involved in the case Justice Rugg observes, twas design ed to afford a nonresident the pro- lection of the automobile registra- ton of his home state or country during temporary sojourn within this Commonwealth, not exceeding period of 90 days. It was tram sient privilege accorded to non-resi- dents on considerations of recipro- acity.
 Nothing in the history" says the justice, "or the previous interpreta- ton of the statute, indicates that 1t was intended to permit the oper- ation within the commonwealth, of an automobile owned by a non resi- dent for an aggregate of more than 30 days in a calendar year even though no one visit extended over- mre than 30 continuous days.
 ITO give such an interpretation, " he goes on, would permit a non- resident to operate within the com monwealth almost Nwithout super vision or regulation by the authori- ties.
 "This commonwealth is almost alone among the states in exacting compulsory motor vehicle insurance of those who register their motor vehicles here. Less effective protec- ton for those liable to injury by automobiles on the public ways Is required in neighboring states. To adopt the contention of the plain tiff might seriously affect the main purpose of our registration and compulsory insurance laws. It would offer a simple method of evading those laws in many instances.,'
 Tn concluding his opinion, in which the other justices concurred, Justice Rugg states that, i've are of the opinion that the instant statute does not afford protection for the operation of such an auto mobile for mode than 30 days dur ing a calendar year"
 Attorneys and others who are in- terested in a full report of this de- cision will find 1t in Volume 6, sec- ond series No. 3, Northeastern Re- porter, page 342.