Stone v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Stone v. State

72 S.W.2d 1118, 126 Tex. Crim. 491, 1934 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 746

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 13, 1934

DocketNo. 16836.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 S.W.2d 1118 (Stone v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stone v. State, 72 S.W.2d 1118, 126 Tex. Crim. 491, 1934 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 746 (Tex. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge. —

It was charged against appellant that as owner he operated a commercial motor vehicle on Highway No. 35 and that said vehicle carried a load in excess of 7000 pounds. Upon conviction appellant was assessed a fine of $10.00.

A jury was waived, and appellant was tried before the County Judge of Nacogdoches County upon an agreed statement of facts which is brought forward. The law which appellant is claimed to have transgressed is Sec. 5, Chap. 282,

*492 Acts 42nd Legislature, (Vernon’s Ann. Texas P. C., Art. 827a, Sec. 5). The law will be found copied in the opinion in Holyfield v. State, 63 S. W. (2d) 386, and it is not thought necessary to again set it out here.

We have not been favored with a brief from appellant, hence are not advised of his exact contention. The statement of facts shows that appellant was hauling saw logs from the point of origin along Highway No. 35 to his saw mill in Nacogdoches. It appears to have been the State’s contention that the station of Appleby on the H. E. and W. T. Railroad was a practicable common carrier receiving point, and nearer to the point of origin than the destination point, and therefore the exemption of the overload found in Sec. 5 (b) Acts 41st Leg. (1929) 2nd C. S., chap. 42, as amended by Acts 42nd Leg. (1931) Chap. 282, Sec. 7, (Vernon’s Ann. Texas P. C., Art. 827a (Sec. 5 (b) had no application under the facts of the present case. It was apparently appellant’s contention that because it would cost more to haul from the point of origin to Appleby, there unload, reload and ship by rail to point of destination than to haul directly from origin to destination he was not amenable to the law forbidding the overloading of his motor vehicle.

As we understand the facts the case of Holyfield (supra) is directly in point, and sustains the present conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge. —

It was charged against appellant that as owner he operated a commercial motor vehicle on Highway No. 35 and that said vehicle carried a load in excess of 7000 pounds. Upon conviction appellant was assessed a fine of $10.00.

A jury was waived, and appellant was tried before the County Judge of Nacogdoches County upon an agreed statement of facts which is brought forward. The law which appellant is claimed to have transgressed is Sec. 5, Chap. 282,

*492 Acts 42nd Legislature, (Vernon’s Ann. Texas P. C., Art. 827a, Sec. 5). The law will be found copied in the opinion in Holyfield v. State, 63 S. W. (2d) 386, and it is not thought necessary to again set it out here.

We have not been favored with a brief from appellant, hence are not advised of his exact contention. The statement of facts shows that appellant was hauling saw logs from the point of origin along Highway No. 35 to his saw mill in Nacogdoches. It appears to have been the State’s contention that the station of Appleby on the H. E. and W. T. Railroad was a practicable common carrier receiving point, and nearer to the point of origin than the destination point, and therefore the exemption of the overload found in Sec. 5 (b) Acts 41st Leg. (1929) 2nd C. S., chap. 42, as amended by Acts 42nd Leg. (1931) Chap. 282, Sec. 7, (Vernon’s Ann. Texas P. C., Art. 827a (Sec. 5 (b) had no application under the facts of the present case. It was apparently appellant’s contention that because it would cost more to haul from the point of origin to Appleby, there unload, reload and ship by rail to point of destination than to haul directly from origin to destination he was not amenable to the law forbidding the overloading of his motor vehicle.

As we understand the facts the case of Holyfield (supra) is directly in point, and sustains the present conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.W.2d 1118, 126 Tex. Crim. 491, 1934 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-state-texcrimapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack