Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 22 November 1912
• Docket Number: No. 22,207.,22,207.
• Citation: 178 Ind. 498,99 N.E. 801
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. Ry. CO. v. STATE.

178 Ind. 498

99 N.E. 801

PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. Ry. CO.

v.STATE.

No. 22,207.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 22, 1912.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Joseph T. Markey, Judge.

The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company was convicted of a violation of law, and it appeals. Affirmed.Pickens & Pickens, of Indianapolis, for appellant. Thomas M. Honon, Atty. Gen., Thomas H. Branaman, of Indianapolis, Edwin Corr, of Bloomington, and Jas. E. McCullough, of Indianapolis, for the State.

MORRIS, J.

Prosecution, by indictment, against appellant for violation of the act of March 8, 1909 (Acts 1909, p. 441), commonly called the “Automatic Bell-Ringer Act.” Motion to quash indictment overruled. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and also filed a special plea in writing. Trial by the court, resulting in a finding of guilty. Motion for new trial overruled. Motion in arrest of judgment overruled. Judgment on finding for $100 and costs. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The alleged errors relied on for reversal are (1) overruling motion to quash the indictment; (2) overruling motion for a new trial; (3) overruling motion in arrest of judgment.

[1] The record shows that the trial court made its finding on January 9, 1912, and that appellant filed its motion for a new trial on February 17, 1912. Therefore, appellant having failed to file its motion for a new trial in time, no question is here presented on the action of the court in overruling the same. Section 2158, Burns' Stat. 1908; McCutcheon v. State, 93 N. E. 545, and cases cited. The motion to quash the indictment alleges: (1) That the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a public offense for the following reasons: (a) The act of March 8, 1909, is void, being in violation of section 8 of article 1 of the United States Constitution, and of the laws of Congress enacted thereunder, and in pursuance thereof. (b) The said act is not a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and is therefore void. (2) That the indictment does not state the offense with sufficient certainty.

The same propositions are presented by the motion in arrest of judgment as are presented by the motion to quash, with the exception that in the former motion it is alleged that the act of March 8, 1909, is void, for the reason that it is repugnant to section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, in that it deprives the defendant of its property without due process of law.

Appellant contends that the record in this cause shows that the engine, which the indictment charges appellant was operating, without having it equipped with an automatic bell-ringing device, was used at the time in handling interstate commerce; and, that Congress having enacted laws regulating the equipment of locomotives used and operated in transporting interstate commerce, the Legislature was prohibited, by section 8, art. 1, of the federal Constitution, from enacting the act of March 8, 1909, in so far as it affects appellant.

[2][3] This question is not presented to the court either by the motion to quash the indictment, or by the motion in arrest of judgment. The motion to quash only reached defects apparent on the fact of the indictment. Burns' Stat. 1908, § 2065; Ford v. State, 112 Ind. 373, 14 N. E. 241;Hoffman v. State, 95 N. E. 1002. In a criminal case a motion in arrest of judgment only raises two questions: (1) That the grand jury which found the indictment had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged, for the reason that such offense was not within the jurisdiction of the court; (2) that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a public offense. Burns' Stat. 1908, § 2159; Laydon v. State, 52 Ind. 459;Ellis v. State, 141 Ind. 357, 40 N. E. 801.

[4] The sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence in a criminal cause cannot be called in question by a motion in arrest of judgment. Bright v. State, 90 Ind. 343;Sherwood v. State, 18 Ind. App. 260, 47 N. E. 936. In State v. L. & N. R. Co., 96 N. E. 340, it was held that the act of 1909 does not purport to govern railroads operating beyond the limits of the state of Indiana. In the present case the indictment does not disclose that the appellant's road, or the locomotives used thereon, was...