Case Name: Aaron Clark, Petitioner &c., versus Commonwealth
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1826-10-09
Citations: 4 Pick. 125
Docket Number: 
Parties: Aaron Clark, Petitioner &c., versus Commonwealth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Aaron Clark, Petitioner &c., versus Commonwealth.
Oct. 7th.
Certiorari lies to the Court of Common Pleas in criminal prosecutious carried there by appeal from a justice of the peace.
By 66 the travelled part ” of the road, in St, 1820, c. 65, which requires persons travelling with any vehicle and meeting each other on the road, to turn to the right of the centre of such part, is meant that part which is usually wrought for travelling, and not any track which may happen to be made in the road by the passing of vehicles. * /
The petitioner was prosecuted before a justice of the peace, under St. 1820, c. 65, for not turning his wagon, with which he was travelling on the highway in Rutland, to the right of the centre of the travelled part of the road, by means of which neglect the prosecutor’s chaise, in meeting and endeavouring to pass, was injured by the wagon. The petitioner appealed from the sentence of the magistrate, and at the trial before the Court of Common Pleas, it being proved that he did not turn his wagon to the right of the centre of that part of the road which was usually travelled, although it was in his power to do it, he offered to prove that the travel was usually near one side of that part of the road which was wrought for travel, and that he did turn to the right of the centre of the part so wrought, leaving sufficient room for the chaise to pass on the part which was wrought and made safe and convenient for travellers. This evidence was rejected, and the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine ; whereupon he prayed for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas.
Hoar and Newton, in support of the petition,
contended, that by “ the travelled part” of the road, in St. 1820, c. 65, was meant the part wrought and made for travel, and cited Si. 1804, c. 125, § 2.
Oct. 9th.
Merrick, for the commonwealth,
suggested, that certiorari was not the proper remedy in this case, but that exceptions should have been filed ; Si. 1820, c. 79, § 5 ; and he insisted, that by “ travelled part” of the road, was meant the beaten path, it being intended that two parties meeting should each have the benefit of the part on which the public usually travelled.
Hoar, in reply, said the St. 1820, c. 79, <§> 5, relates to civil actions only ; but supposing that exceptions might have been filed here, the statute does not prohibit a party from pursuing any other legal course for correcting erroneous proceedings in the court below.
See Revised Stat. c. 51, § 1.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This being a proceeding not according to
the course of the common law, certiorari lies.
By "the travelled part" of the road, is intended that part which is usually wrought for travelling. A traveller is not obliged, because a track happens to have been made on one side of the part so wrought, to turn to the right of the centre of this track. If he turns to the right of the centre of the wrought part, so that there is room on the wrought part for the other traveller to pass, it is sufficient, and the penalty is not incurred.
See Howe's Praot. 491, 498; 1 Chitty's Grim. Law, (3d Amer. ed.) $74, n. (B)"