Page:Motors and motor-driving (1902).djvu/425

Rh and a half, and does not exceed two tons, he shall not drive the same at a greater speed than eight miles an hour, or if such weight exceed two tons, at a greater speed than five miles an hour.

The second of these regulations is clear to even one. As regards the first, every respectable driver would agree to the spirit of the regulation, but a certain surprise comes upon one when first learning what the decision of the court is as to its meaning. It has been laid down that both expressions 'having regard to the traffic on the highway' and 'to the common danger of passengers' have no reference to the fact of there being any traffic or passengers on the road in the vicinity of the car. In one case, the locus in quo was a street in Esher, where of course there might have been traffic, though the evidence seemed to point to none being there at the time. These decisions appear most unfortunate, for any driver would consider himself perfectly justified when in the open country, and seeing the road clear, in going at the limit of twelve miles an hour, but it would seem that any policeman noticing him could still summon him under this subsection. Although these decisions stand, yet I can hardly think that a conviction under this subsection if there were not also an offence against the twelve-mile limit could really be upheld in the case I have suggested. The Courts have recently intimated in the case of Gorham v. Brice, published in the 'Times ' of March 13, 1902, following other cases, that it is not much use appealing to the High Court of Justice, and that what appellants really want is a change in the law. In this case the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Alverstone) said he could not understand the motives with which such appeals were brought or what automobilists thought to gain by suggesting there was no evidence as to speed, when, as in practically every case, they did not like the findings of magistrates. He further stated that it was possible the magistrates might have come to a wrong decision, but the Court had no power to interfere with their findings of fact.

Any vehicle which draws another is not under any