Home COMMONWEALTH vs. WILLIAM A. GILE.

217 Mass. 18

November 17, 1913 - February 27, 1914

Suffolk County

Present: RUGG, C. J., HAMMOND, LORING, BRALEY, & DE COURCY, JJ.

Automobile. Boston. Law of the Road. Way, Public.

Neither article 1, §3, of the "street traffic regulations and rules for driving," adopted by the street commissioners of the city of Boston, providing that "a vehicle overtaking another vehicle shall, in passing, keep to the left, but it shall not leave the line on the right unless there is a clear way of at least one hundred feet in advance on the left," nor St. 1908, c. 447, which authorized the adoption of the regulations by the street commissioners, is repealed or affected by St. 1909, c. 534, relating to motor vehicles and their operation; nor is the article quoted inconsistent with the provision of the law of the road contained in St. 1908, c. 512, § 1.


COMPLAINT , received and sworn to in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston on April 13, 1912, for a violation of article 1, § 3, of the street traffic regulations and rules for driving, in Boston, as stated in the opinion.

On appeal to the Superior Court, the case was tried before Chase, J. The defendant admitted that, if the traffic regulations were valid, he was guilty of the offense charged, and made the requests for rulings quoted in the opinion. The rulings were refused; and the defendant was found guilty and alleged exceptions.

F. H. Gile, for the defendant.

D. V. McIsaac, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth, submitted a brief.


DE COURCY, J. The defendant was charged with violation of article 1, § 3, of the "street traffic regulations and rules for driving" passed by the street commissioners of the city of Boston under the authority of St. 1908, c. 447. The section on which the complaint was based reads as follows: "A vehicle overtaking another vehicle shall, in passing, keep to the left, but it shall not leave the line on the right unless there is a clear way of at least one hundred feet in advance on the left." The case is here on exceptions to the judge's refusal to give these two rulings requested: "1. That the traffic regulations of the city of Boston are

Page 19

null and void as to automobiles under St. 1909, c. 534, § 17, repealing them absolutely in toto. 2. That art. 1, § 3, of the traffic regulations of the city of Boston, under which this action was commenced, is invalid as to automobiles, since it conflicts with the St. 1908, c. 512, § 1, approved May 12, 1908."

1. St. 1909, c. 534, which is "An Act relative to motor vehicles and to the operation thereof," expressly repeals certain specified acts and also "all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent" with it. That it does not repeal the traffic regulation in question, or the statute by which it was authorized, and does not relieve automobiles from the scope of these rules, was settled by the case of Commonwealth v. Newhall, 205 Mass. 344 , in which the opinion leaves nothing further to be said on the subject.

2. The regulation in question does not conflict with the law of the road laid down by St. 1908, c. 512, § 1. The statute prescribes that the driver shall keep his vehicle on the right of the middle of the travelled part of the way whenever there is not an unobstructed view of the road for at least one hundred yards. The regulation is consistent with and well within the statute in their common purpose of regulating street traffic.

Exceptions overruled.