Hubbard v. State
| Decision Date | 28 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11453.) |
| Parties | HUBBARD v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Harris County Court at Law No. 2; Ray Scruggs, Judge.
W. M. Hubbard was convicted of violating the loan brokers law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Hunt, Teagle & Moseley and Earle Adams. Jr., all of Houston, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of violating the loan brokers law as defined in articles 1127 and 1129 of the Penal Code 1925, and articles 6162 and 6163, R. C. S. 1925; punishment, a fine of $150.
Appellant's motion for new trial was overruled, and court adjourned on June 4, 1927. The statement of facts and all of appellant's bills of exception were not filed until September 6, 1927. As neither were timely filed, they are not entitled to consideration and are stricken upon motion of the state. Article 760, C. C. P. 1925; Miller v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 267 S. W. 487; Parker v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 81, 200 S. W. 1083; Mireles v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 396, 266 S. W. 418.
Most of the questions raised on this appeal by this action pass out of the case. A brief has been filed suggesting that the law is unconstitutional and that the complaint and information are insufficient to charge any offense. The information follows the language of the statute and is in our opinion sufficient, especially in the absence of any exception to same. One of the objections stressed in the brief is that the information fails to charge any employment by the parties named as having made the assignment of their wages, and fails also to expressly aver that either had any wages due them. The information sets out in hæc verba the written assignment of the wages in question, and this instrument on its face shows that the assignors had wages and salaries due or to come due for the months of December and January, 1927, from the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company. The information expressly avers that appellant took this as security for the payment of a loan and the interest thereon as an assignment of the wages of the assignors. The information in its entirety fully meets the objections made by appellant in his brief.
The constitutionality of the law is questioned. In the case of Juhan v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 63, 216 S. W. 873, this court said:
"We have no doubt that the business of the appellant is one whose regulation is within the police power of the state, and that reasonable restriction thereof may be provided by the Legislature."
This same view was reaffirmed in the recent case of Brand v. State, No. 10669 (Tex. Cr. App.) 3 S. W. (2d) 439, motion for rehearing overruled March 7, 1928, not yet officially reported.
We reiterate the opinion that the business of a loan broker is one within the power of the Legislature to regulate, and that it did not exceed its constitutional power in attempting, as was its apparent intention, to prevent by penal laws the weak and helpless from becoming the prey of modern Shylocks.
It is insisted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelleher v. Minshull
... ... by J. J. Kelleher, doing business as Credit Finance Company, ... against J. C. Minshull, as Supervisor of Banking of the State ... of Washington, and another, to test the constitutionality of ... the Small Loan Act. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff ... State, 1931, 162 Tenn. 573, 39 ... S.W.2d 283 ... Texas: Brand v. State, 1927, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 3 ... S.W.2d 439; Hubbard v. State, 1928, 109 Tex.Cr.R ... 320, 4 S.W.2d 971 ... Virginia: Sweat v. Commonwealth, 1929, 152 Va. 1041, ... 148 S.E. 774 ... ...
-
Houston v. State, 21684.
...Article 802c, P.C., as amended by House Bill No. 73, Regular Session of the 47th Legislature. For further reasoning see Hubbard v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 4 S.W.2d 971; Franklin v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 214, 44 S.W.2d 996; Sharp v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 366, 94 S.W.2d 177; Tadlock v. State,......
-
Harvill v. State, 9505.
...of wages, or a chattel mortgage on household and kitchen furniture. Brand v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 3 S.W.2d 439; Hubbard v. State, 109 Tex. Cr.R. 320, 4 S.W.2d 971; Juhan v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 63, 216 S.W. 873; Sutton v. Lovan, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W. 295; Mason v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 2......
-
Davis v. State, 21699.
...force at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, as well as at the time of the trial herein. See Art. 15, P.C., and Hubbard v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 4 S.W.2d 971, 972; Franklin v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 414, 44 S.W.2d 996; Sharp v. State, 130 Tex. Cr.R. 366, 94 S.W.2d 177; Simm......