Baldridge v. State, 30364
| Decision Date | 04 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 30364,30364 |
| Citation | 167 Tex.Crim. 519,321 S.W.2d 309 |
| Parties | B. W. BALDRIDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Greenwood & Russell, Harlingen, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for violation of a special fishing law for Willacy County, (Special Laws 43rd Leg. Reg. Session (1933) Ch. 29, p. 36) which reads, in part:
Section 2 provides as punishment for violation of the act a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $200.
The emergency clause recites that the marine life of certain waters, abutting on the Laguna Madre could not be properly conserved if seines, nets and trawls are permitted to be used, which creates an emergency.
Prosecution was upon complaint and information filed in the County Court of Willacy County. Count 1 alleged that appellant 'did unlawfully use a net, said net not being then and there a cast net being used for taking bait, in the tidal waters of Willacy County, Texas, west of Padre Island.'
Upon a trial before a jury upon a plea of not guilty, appellant was found guilty under this court and assessed a fine of $50. He appeals, contending that the statute is void for indefiniteness.
Appellant points out that the word 'net' is not defined in the statute and there is no reference to the purpose of using the net being to catch fish, hence it is argued the use of a hair net, butterfly net, tennis or volley ball net, while upon the waters described in the act, or the use of any net for any purpose other than a cast net for taking bait in or on said waters is made unlawful under the wording of the special law, without any such intent on the part of the legislature.
In determining the meaning of a word employed in a statute the inquiry is not as to its abstract meaning, but as to the sense in which it is used. When the legislative purpose so requires, a word may be given a broader or a narrower meaning than that which it has in ordinary usage. Bailey v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 432, 284 S.W. 574.
The rule is that a statute that is susceptible of more than one construction will be so interpreted as to secure the benefit intended; will best effect the legislative intent and so that it will be constitutional and valid. 39 Tex.Jur. pp. 205-206.
Thus the act must be construed in the light...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. State
...narrower meaning than that which it has in ordinary usage. Bailey v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 432, 284 S.W. 574."Baldridge v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 321 S.W.2d 309, at 310 (1959). In Bailey v. State, supra, at 576, the Court relied in part on "a learned text-writer," namely, Lewis' Sutherlan......
-
Ex parte Granviel
...validity. Townsend v. State, 427 S.W.2d 55 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Newsom v. State, 372 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Baldridge v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 321 S.W.2d 309 (1959); Lockhart v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 230, 200 S.W.2d 164 (1947). See also State v. Shoppers World, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 107 ......
-
Reeves v. State
...validity. Townsend v. State, 427 S.W.2d 55 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Newsom v. State, 372 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Baldridge v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 321 S.W.2d 309 (1959); Lockhart v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 230, 200 S.W.2d 164 (1947). See also State v. Shoppers World, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 107 ......
-
Ward v. State
...but a word may be given a broader or a narrower meaning than that which it has in ordinary usage. Id., citing Baldridge v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 321 S.W.2d 309, 310 (1959). The principal rule is that a statute, when susceptible to more than one construction, will be interpreted so as to......