Ex Parte Wright
| Decision Date | 12 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4664.) |
| Parties | Ex parte WRIGHT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. K. Baker, of Coleman, for appellant. Garland Woodward, Co. Atty., and Critz & Woodward, all of Coleman, and E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The relator was convicted in the mayor's court of Santa Anna, in Coleman county, for violating a speed ordinance of said town. He appealed to the county court, and was on July 3, 1917, again convicted, and fined $5. He refused to pay the fine, and was then taken in charge by the sheriff of said county, holding him under said conviction until he paid the fine and costs. He thereupon applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted, and the cause regularly submitted in this court.
By Acts 1907, p. 193 (article 815, P. C.), it was made an offense for any one to drive or operate an automobile, on any public road, street, or driveway at a greater rate of speed than 18 miles an hour, or upon any such road, street, or driveway within the built-up portions of any city, town, or village, the limits of which shall be fixed by a municipal officer thereof, at a greater rate of speed than 8 miles an hour, except where such city or town may by an ordinance or by-law allow a greater rate of speed.
Before this prosecution began in the lower courts Santa Anna, which was a town of only about 2,000 inhabitants, had passed an ordinance making it unlawful and an offense for the owner, driver, or operator of any automobile, etc., to run, drive, or operate it along or over any of certain named streets at a greater rate of speed than 12 miles an hour. There are a large number of other provisions of said ordinance regulating the running of such machines, but it is unnecessary to state any of them. The said ordinance fixing the rate of speed at 12 miles an hour was doubtless under said article 815, P. C.; but whether it was or not does not affect the question to be decided herein.
As stated, said case against relator was tried in the county court of Coleman county on July 3, 1917. At that time Acts 1917, p. 474 et seq., regulating the operation of motor vehicles, had gone into effect, but evidently the lower court and the attorneys engaged in said trial were not aware of that fact, and were doubtless not aware of the provisions of said act, as that law had not then been published.
By said act (page 480, § 20) it is made an offense for any person to operate or drive a motor or other vehicle on any public highway where the territory contiguous thereto is closely built up at a greater rate of speed than 18 miles an hour, or in the business district of any town or incorporated city at a greater rate of speed than 15 miles an hour in cities of less than 40,000 population, or at a greater rate of speed than 10 miles an hour in the business district of cities of more than 40,000 population.
Section 23 of said act is:
"Limitations as to the rate of speed herein fixed by this act shall be exclusive of all other limitations fixed by any law of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Somerville v. Keller
... ... 34, 47 So. 526; Section 15, Chapter ... 116 of Laws of 1916, page 11; Section 10 of Chapter 116 of ... Laws of 1916; Ex Parte Daniels, [165 Miss. 248] 183 ... Cal. 636, 192 P. 443; Schneiderman v. Sesanstein, ... 121 Ohio St. 80, 167 N.E. 158; Baraboo v. Dwyer, 166 ... s. 372, 165 N.W. 297, page 19; Re Automobile Acts, 15 Pa ... Dist. R. 83; Ex Parte Wright, 82 Tex. Crim. Rep ... 247, 199 S.W. 486; People v. Braum, 166 N.Y.S. 708, ... page 19; Stewart v. Olson, 188 Wis. 487, 206 N.W ... 909; Kidd v ... ...
-
State v. Gregory
...The authorities in support of that contention have been carefully reviewed, particularly the case primarily relied upon, Ex parte Wright, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 247, 199 S.W. 486. It, and other cases cited by defendant, are to be distinguished in that the statutes of those jurisdictions relating to t......
-
Ex Parte Mooney
...W. 472; City of San Antonio v. Fetzer (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 1034; Ex parte Curry, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 3, 255 S. W. 730; Ex parte Wright, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 247, 199 S. W. 486; Ex parte Parr, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 200 S. W. 404; Vernon's Tex. Civ. Stat. 1925, vol. 2, p. 309, note 20, also, p. 344,......
-
Ex Parte Curry
...held invalid in the Slaughter Case, supra. The effective status of section 23 has frequently been recognized. See Ex parte Wright, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 247, 199 S. W. 486; Ex parte Parr, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 528, 200 S. W. 404. Other provisions of the same chapter have been considered. Some have been h......