Arthur v. State

• Decision Date: 07 December 1939
• Docket Number: 27280.
• Citation: 23 N.E.2d 674,216 Ind. 311
• Parties: ARTHUR v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

23 N.E.2d 674

216 Ind. 311

ARTHUR v. STATE.

No. 27280.

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 7, 1939

Appeal from Hancock Circuit Court; John Hinchman Judge.

William C. Erbecker and T. Ernest Maholm, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Omer S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Rex Boyd, of Greencastle, for appellee.

FANSLER Judge.

The appellant was charged with operating a motor truck on the public highways without having complied with the Indiana Weight Tax Law (Acts 1937, Ch. 255) by paying the tax and displaying weight tax plates as provided by statute. He filed a motion to quash the affidavit. The first ground asserts that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense. He then asserts that the act is null and void and unconstitutional for twenty-eight separate and distinct reasons. The motion to quash was overruled. He then filed an answer in which it is asserted that the law is null and void and unconstitutional upon twenty-nine different grounds. The contentions and arguments contained in these pleadings are interspersed with recitals of fact, and the answer is verified, but it cannot be treated as evidence in the case.

There was a trial, at which the only evidence introduced was that the defendant, a truck driver, was arrested while driving a truck upon the State Highway without weight tax plates and without a certificate showing that he had purchased the plates. The defendant testified that he was a driver employed by J. C. Perry & Company, a wholesale grocery house, and that the company had not purchased the plates or complied with the law; that he understood the company was desirous of contesting the law; that the truck was of the semi-trailer type. There was a finding of guilty and judgment fining the defendant $10 and costs. He moved for a new trial on the ground that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and the decision of the court is contrary to law, which motion was overruled. He filed a motion in arrest of judgment containing twenty-eight separate specifications, all questioning the constitutionality of the law for the same reasons asserted in the motion to quash and the answer. The motion was overruled.

Error is assigned here upon the overruling of the motion to quash the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment, and the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.

The evidence does not disclose the character of the truck involved, except that it was of the semi-trailer type, and does not disclose the purposes for which it was used, or the territory in which it was used, except that it was being driven upon a State Highway within the State of Indiana.

The appellant directs his propositions, points, and authorities and argument only to the first assigned error. The propositions, points, and argument deal only with the question of the constitutionality of the statute. The sufficiency of the affidavit to charge on offense under the statute, if the statute is constitutional, is not questioned. We find no constitutional question presented which was not decided in Kelly v. Finney et al., 1935, 207 Ind. 557, 194...