Mosier v. State

• Decision Date: 05 October 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 6024.)
• Citation: 234 S.W. 225
• Parties: MOSIER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

234 S.W. 225

MOSIER v. STATE.

(No. 6024.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 5, 1921.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tarrant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.

Ed Mosier was convicted of failing to stop and render necessary assistance to one struck by an automobile operated by him, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Harry M. Myers, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Tarrant county of a violation of the provisions of section 18 of chapter 207, Acts Regular Session Thirty-Fifth Legislature, making it an offense to fail to stop and render necessary assistance to one struck by an automobile operated by accused, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.

In his amended motion for new trial appellant, for the first time, set up the unconstitutionality of the law under which this prosecution was had. This should have been properly presented by motion to quash. Article 837 of Vernon's C. C. P. provides the only grounds for a motion for new trial. and distinctly states that for said grounds and for no other will a new trial be granted. There was no motion to quash the indictment in this case, nor any motion in arrest of judgment based on the invalidity of this law. Appellant's contention, however, is that the title to the act in question embraces more than one subject and is therefore obnoxious to our Constitution. He cites no authority and presents no reasons for his position further than the statement of his contention. Considering same as if the matter was properly before us, we hold the contention unsound. Under the liberal construction given by our Constitution to this character of questions, and especially in construing section 35 of article 3 of our Constitution, all subjects incidental to, auxiliary of, or that in any way tend to effectuate the general purpose and scope of a bill are held to be comprehended thereby; and we would hold that a bill whose purpose as stated in its caption was to regulate the use and operation of automobiles on the public highways, which contained a provision penalizing persons operating an automobile, who struck and injured other persons, and then failed to stop and render the assistance pointed out, in the terms of the section in question, was not obnoxious to our Constitution, which forbids the passage of bills by our Legislature which embrace more than one subject.

Appellant contended in his motion in arrest of judgment that the indictment was fatally defective, in that it fails to allege that the injured party needed or requested the services of a physician, or that same were necessary, or that she asked for such services. The charging part of the indictment is as follows:

"Ed Mosier, being...