People v. Compañía Insular de Transporte, Inc.

46 P.R. 576
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedApril 27, 1934
DocketNo. 4938
StatusPublished

This text of 46 P.R. 576 (People v. Compañía Insular de Transporte, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Compañía Insular de Transporte, Inc., 46 P.R. 576 (prsupreme 1934).

Opinion

Me. Justice Aldeey

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Compañía Insular de Transporte, Inc., appeals from a judgment whereby it was sentenced to pay a fine for transporting in one of its trucks a heavier load than that author-, ized to be carried on the public highways of the Island.

The grounds urged in support of its appeal are as follows: That the lower court erred in weighing the evidence; in admitting in evidence a certain document; and in rendering judgment against the defendant. The last assignment was not discussed by the appellant since it was considered to follow as a consequence of the other two.

The appellant bases its first assignment of error upon the contention that the testimony of the driver of the truck was inadmissible to show the relationship of the principal and the agent; but in the cases of Cayuga Linen, Etc., Inc., v.. Crédito y Ahorro Ponceño, 41 P.R.R. 462, and Fajardo v. Schlüter & Co., Succrs., 43 P.R.R. 263, we decided that the-agency might be proved by the testimony of the agent at the-trial, a rule of evidence which is also applicable to criminal; cases.

The second assignment is without merit, even if the document called “conduce” was not admissible as evidence of the facts to which it referred, that is, that the chauffeur Eafaeli Meléndez received the sugar bags specified therein from the Central Los Caños, of Arecibo, to be carried by the appellant to San Juan in the truck mentioned in the accusation, and of the weight mentioned, because in any event the chauffeur himself testified as to the same facts at the trial.

As the first two assignments of error are not well founded, the third must fall without a basis, and the judgment appealed' from should be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 P.R. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-compania-insular-de-transporte-inc-prsupreme-1934.