LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL
Rewards for Automobile Arrests Legal.
The trouble between automobilists in general and the authorities of Patchogue, L. I., in particular were revived last week by the decision of judge Smith, of Brooklyn, in the case of R. W. McNeil, a taxpayer of Brookhaven, who had sought to have the supervisors of Nassau County restrained from paying the rewards which were claimed by the various deputy sheriffs for making arrests for violations of the automobile speed laws. Messrs. Niles and Johnson, who are also counsel for the American Automobile Association, appeared for McNeil.
Judge Smith’s opinion, which was favorable to the supervisors, and consequently establishes the legality of such rewards, is in part as follows:
“Section 230 of the county law provides that ‘all expenses necessarily incurred by the district attorney in criminal cases, or proceedings arising in his county.’ shall be a county charge. Substantially this provision of law was in effect at the time of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of The People, ex rel Gardner, against the Supervisors of Columbia County, 134 New York, page 1. In that case Justice Bradley, in his opinion, speaking of the district attorney, says ‘it was his duty to conduct prosecutions for crimes committed in his county, the expenses necessarily incurred by him in criminal cases arising therein were county charges. This duty to conduct prosecutions may fairly be construed to embrace whatever is essential to bring the criminal to trial, as well as proceedings in the trial.’
“In the absence of an authority to the contrary, the offering of a reward for evidence which shall lead to a conviction of persons guilty of offenses which were notoriously being constantly committed, cannot be declared to be not properly essential to bring offenders to trial for their offenses. Very much must be left to the discretion of the district attorney. This action is based on the entire lack of power to offer the reward, and not upon the abuse of the discretion in offering the reward.
“The above statement is based upon the assumption that the district attorney offered the reward of which complaint is made. The plaintiff claims that the rewards were in effect offered by the supervisors. The supervisors do not contend that they have any authority to offer rewards for evidence which shall lead to a conviction of a crime committed within their county. They have no such power, but in this case they did not offer the reward or direct the offering of the reward. They, in terms, requested the district attorney to offer the reward; he was at liberty to refuse their request. There was no direction or request as to the form of the offer. If the district attorney chose to advertise in his offer that it was made pursuant to a resolution of the board it was probably done to assure any person that acted upon his offer that his claim would undoubtedly be allowed by the body which had the lawful power to audit and allow it. The essential point is that the board did not attempt to control the discretion of the district attorney, so that his offer of the reward was an act for which he is alone responsible and which was within his power. It follows that the complaint must be dismissed with costs.”
Opinion on West Virginian County Court Ruling.
On October 5 the County Court of Grant County, West Virginia, made an order that “All persons be, and are hereby prohibited from running and operating automobiles or machines of like character upon any of the highways in this county. Anyone violating the provisions of this order will be subject to a penalty of one hundred ($100) dollars.”
The executive committee of the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers, Incorporated, took the matter in hand at its last meeting, and directed its counsel, Charles Thaddeus Terry, to prepare an opinion on the validity of the order for the benefit of David L. Luke, a resident of the county, and of all other persons interested. Mr. Terry has prepared a memorandum of authorities and arguments which show:
1. That this order is an illegal usurpation by the County Court of Grant County, of the powers of the Legislature.
2. It is in violation of both the United States and West Virginia constitution, in so for as it deprives citizens of both liberty and property without due process of law.
3. It is in excess of the police powers of the State, and is a deprivation of both liberty and property without due process of law.
4. It discriminates between the users of the highways and deprives automobilists of the equal protection of the law, and is therefore void.
The arguments in the case may be seen and copied at the association's offices. It is not unlikely that similar cases will arise in other directions, in which case the association will be glad to supply the members, or anyone else interested, with the details of Mr. Terry’s arguments.
Philadelphia, Pa.—Upon a petition filed by the Diamond Drill and Machine Company and Clement & Sons, Judge McMichael has appointed George De B. Myers receiver for the Union Motor Truck Company.
New incorporations.
The Reo Motor Car Company, New York city. Capital, $10,000. Incorporators, R. E. Olds, C. Andrade, R. M. Owen.
Curtis Automobile Company, Milwaukee. Capital, $10,000. Incorporators, Orin L Curtis, Harry Landauer, Frank Thanhouser.
Ardsley Motor Car Company, Yonkers. N. Y. Capital, $75,000. Directors, Theodore S. Fuller, Frederick P. Fuller, A. E. Rittenhouse.
Fuller & Walch, Yonkers, N. Y. To sell automobiles. Capital, $10,000. Incorporators, Frederick P. Fuller, Theodore S. Fuller, A. S. Andrews.
The E. R. Clark Automobile Company. Springfield, Mass. Capital, $10,000. Incorporators, Edward R. Clark, Edgar A. Stoddard, Ralph W. Stoddard.
Toronto Gas and Gasoline Engine Company, Toronto, Ont. Capital, $300,000. Directors, J. Laishley, L. C. Laishley, Robert Hunter.
The Evans Automobile Company, Columbus, Ohio. Capital, $30,000. Incorporators, I. Cyrus Morrison. G. W. Smith, W. E Evans, Smiley Caldwell, Charles E. Leist.
Orlando F. Weber Company, Milwaukee, Wis. To manufacture automobiles and automobile parts. Capital, $80,000. Incorporators, Urlando F. Weber, Alfred Reeke, A. F. Soliday.
The Middleton Manufacturing Company, Milwaukee, to manufacture automobiles and automobile parts. Capital, $200,000. Incorporators, William C. Middleton, Frederick S. Middleton, Albert S. Schrewe.
United States Automobile Company, Rochester, N. Y. Capital, $200,000. Directors, Harry S. Woodworth, Henry H. Love, John A. Barhite, Austin F. Crittenden, Charles F. Garfield, Henry H. Kingston, Jr.; J. Foster Wamer.
The Edmunds & Jones Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Mich. To manufacture automobile lamps, etc. Capital, $6,500. Incorporators, George Edmunds, William T. Jones, George Roberts, Edward C. Humphreys, Harry W. Brooks.
The Gordon Bennett Race.
The French Government has sanctioned the Gordon Bennett Cup race to be held over the Circuit Auvergnat, which has been selected by the Automobile Club of France for the event. The club has offered a trophy to be known as the Grand Prix de l'Automobile Club de France, which will be competed for over the same course and at the same time as the Gordon Bennett race. There is some discussion regarding the restriction of the eligibility to drive in this race to the nationality of the cars entered. That is that only Frenchmen be allowed to drive on the French team, and so on. Hitherto there has been no such restriction.
