The so-called special agents of the
rolley company, gave the names of
. Malone, James Maroney, R. Farr
nd S. A. Downs. Their testimony in
ubstance was that Malone and Ma
oney went to the railroad station and ,
islted to be taken to Dayville. As soon ,
s they boarded the car of the defenu- j
int. two more of their numl er, G. R. i
carr and S. A. Downs, appeared and i
isked to be taken along. The defend- ;
int took them all to their destination |
slid left them. Each passenger paid J
he defendant 50 cents.
Defendant’s counsel argued at some
ength, prefacing his remarks by say
ing that anything he might say was
not to be in any way taken as a re
flection on the prosecution, but that
lie might say something that would
reflect upon some of those concerned.
Fie then scored the trolley company
rnd alluded to the whole proceeding
In trying to trick law-abiding public
service automobile drivers into a tech
aieal breach of the law- as one of the
most depicable proceedings that he
had ever heard of In the city court,
lie said that the trolley company was
not seeking to enforce any law'for the
good of the public at large but only
for its own selfish ends. He thought If
the defendant was guilty that these
men who had tried to inveigle the de
f ndant into breaking the law were
guilty as conspirators in that they
were doing it for a private'purpose.
But the defendant's counsel argued,
the law upon which the charge was
based intends to affect drivers of au
tomobiles who cover a fixed route.
