Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
GERALD
.C. MANN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Honorable B. A. Coe
County Attorney
Hardin County
Kountze, Texas
Dear Mr. Coe: Opinion No. O-2541
Re: Validity of Article 834 of
the Penal Code as amended
by H. B. No. 583, Regular
Session, 41st Legislature,
1929.
We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter
of July 15, 1940, requesting an opinion as to the valid-
ity of Article 834 of the Penal Code, as amended by
House Bill No. 583, at the regular session of the 41st
Legislature (1929), your letter being in part as follows:
"Please furnish me, at your earliest con-
venience, with a departmental opinion concern-
ing the adoption by the Commissioners Court
of an order prohibiting the operation over
the county roads of vehicles with loads in
excess of 5000 pounds under the provisions
of Article 834, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code.
"In view of the questions which have
arisen, I deem it advisable to ask your depart-
ment for a ruling upon the constitutionality of
this article, since I am unable to find where it
has ever been construed either by the courts or
your department.
"your attention is called to the fact that no
specific load limit is mentioned in the article,
but it gives to the Commissioners' Court, the
superintendent, or the State Highway Commission
the authority to regulate tonnage of trucks and
heavy vehicles over roads when, presumably in
their opinion, such use shall tend to rapidly
deteriorate or destroy the roads, bridges, and
culverts along any particular road."
Honorable Il. A. Coo - Page 8
Article 834 of the Penal Code, as it has been
reoontly anmxled, is as follower
*The ConndsEpioner8* Court of auy county
eubjcot to this law actdng upon their owm
amfiou, or through the 8uperintexlent., where
one is employed, or the State Jllghway Cow
ndomloa, shall hay0 the power am% authori*
to regulate the tomfage oi trucks and heery
+eUclso wblch by reason of the oonetructlou
of tho rehlcle or Its weight and toxumge of the
load shall teud to rapldly deteriorate or de-
stroy the rods, bridgeo and oulyerts aloug
the partioulru* roo& or h&pay sought to be
proteoted, ti nQtloes shall be posted aul
shall state the lnaximmload perndttedaml
the tl.nm euoh use is -bited an%. shall be
poeted upon the highway la such places as rill
euable the drivers to make detours to ayoti
the restricted hlgbvaJs or pol'tloue thereof.
*If the owner or operator of any moh ve-
hi010 feels himself ag@%eyed by such aatloa,
he ms;l complain lu tritiug to the County Judge
of suoh County, setting forth the nature of
hlo grievance. Upon the tiling of such oom-
plrint, the County Judge shall fOrthWith cot
down for hearing the issue thue raieed for a
oertaln day, not more than tbreo &age later,
an& a&all give notioe InWriting to suohroed
offlolal of tho clay ami purpose of auah hear-
lag, and at suoh hearing the Count Judge shall
hoar teotlmuy offered by the part1 es respeot-
iyely, md upon ooncluelon thereof shall ren-
der 5uUgmnt euetainiug, reyoU.ug or podiipinc;
suoh order theretofore nmde by the Couut &&
guueriutendent, ati the jtigmnt 0. n------5
the ouuty
u&ge shall be final as to the lmaues so rai8eb.
.lf upon SW& hoaziug tho judggmnt suc-
trius the order of the Oouuty guperinterdent,
or the State Hif;hrcyrConmdemion, aud it appears
that w yiolatlon of sam M been oomdtted
by the ooaplalnant daoe positing suoh nOtdOe@,
he shall be subject to the same peualtp horein-
after preylded for suoh Qff0n80 as if same hod
been Ootitt& eubeequent t0 th0 rOrrdit%on of
Honorable B. A. Coe - Page 3
snlaami
l
Wxy guilty of riolating the provia-
tlonm of suob order of the Qounty
~wlp8lrint~torakte~w~Co~~on,
after it ha8 been so approved W nuoh judgment
of the Oounty Judge mhall be finebnot~oeed-
ing ho iluadred Dollara.'
Theatestodby this general etatut4ry rule uf
tallAity, 8e think Arti.ole 634 is wholly InoperrtAve, be-
oauw of If8 Ar&flalte and dwbtful SnwBLng in the f41-
loving r4spootm
1. Whether the power ud uathority to real&e
thetonnageof truoka audhemvyvehlolesls oouforredupon
the Ce~slonero~ Court either upon It8 wn actionor
aatlng throu@ the t3uperlntcrab4nfwh4re on4 lo onp14y4dd
or the &ate iI&@wq CeraPdudoa, or19 llkev%w iM*pad-
4utl.y oonfarre8upon8uohBUpe~teulent,axl the at&o
tU*way Gowclwlon at the opM.on of muoh 3uperintemleat
er State HIghway tloadod4~;
2. Whether or not the noticea
requAr4d by the
statute are to be poateilby the 40mdmi.onero~ Court0
the I)uparinteadent of roads, or the lllkte liighwy Do,
Qiedon ;
3. Whether or not the *road offload* to whom
aotioe in wrltlag lm require6 to be given v%th rempeat
toaByoolQlaintbyau~~ rmoa to the Qouaty
Judge,neana the wper%ntenflmt 0r oouaty rouls, the
@ ta t4 Hig h w~ Co md88lo n, or lo w o th e r o ffia ia l;
4 . Whether or not the judgment of the Oounty
Ju@s ~ut&aidng the ortier contemplatea the order of the
Uonorablc L. A. Ccc - P'agc4
Superintendent of roads, or the order of tllcState 1Nghl-
way Commission, or the order of the CommLasioners* Court
where the Commissioners( Court has acted upon Its own
mtlon, (if it is authorized by the Act to nnko euch or-
dor upon its otm motion);
Whether or not the Article contemplates
penallzing60ne for an act violating a posted notice
prior to the order of the County Judge werrullng hle
oomplaint as to suoh order shown by the notloo!
0. Whether or not an act violatlq the order
of the Conridssion0ra~COurt, the Superlnteadent of roads,
or the State iii&way Covmdseion duly posted, is punish-
able even in the absence of complaint.
We think the statute is so indefinitely framxl,
md Is of such doubtful construction, as to be ineufti-
clently esplicit to inform those who are subject to it
what conduct on their part will render them liable to
Its penalties, and this woms to be the recognized test
of validity.
Eportatorlurn,Xnc. vs. State, 116 6. W.
(2) 483;
6~ part0 Wilmoth, 67 S. W. (2) 289;
Brockery vs. Stat*, 247 9. W. 606)
3x part0 numphrey, 244 s. Iv. 822;
Grahamvs. iiinos, 240 S. 8. 1016$
Grlffinvs. State, 218 S. \Y.4941
M. ii.& T. Ry. Co. vs. Stats, 100 S. U'.
766;
Auguetine vs. State, 52 8. W. 77;
Connally vs. Gmoral Conet. Co. (U.S.)
70 LW Xd. 322;
12 Tox. Jur. p. 226, 8 17.
nonorablo B. A. Coo - Pago ti
No citieen skould be convicted of arime under
a etatute 80 *antIrig in ~efiaitenees and speolflcness
an to the acts mm&3 pmal therein.