Posey v. State
| Decision Date | 18 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 732 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 448,86 So. 117 |
| Parties | POSEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.
R.J Posey was tried and convicted on a charge of "hauling on, over, along, or across the public roads of Lamar county without a wagon license," and from the judgment he appeals. Affirmed.
Wilson Kelley, of Vernon, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On appeal to the circuit court the solicitor filed the following information:
"The state of Alabama, by its solicitor, complains of Rufus Posey that within 12 months before the commencement of the prosecution did haul for hire, profit, or charge, or compensation, or for sale, or to be offered for sale, logs lumber, or freight over, on, or along a public road of Lamar county with a team and wagon without having first paid a vehicle license tax as required by the rules and regulations promulgated by the court of county commissioners of Lamar county at the November term of same and recorded in the minutes of said court in volume No. 4, pages 21 et seq., same being authorized by section 13 of an act of the Legislature of Alabama approved September 22, 1915."
The first objection taken to this complaint is that it does not conclude "against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." In prosecutions not begun by indictment this is not necessary. Thomas v. State, 107 Ala. 61, 17 So. 941; Simpson v. State, 111 Ala. 6. 20 So. 572.
The next contention is that section 13 of an act of the Legislature approved September 22, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 576), is unconstitutional and void, as being in violation of section 106 of the Constitution of 1901. This position is untenable; the act, applying to all counties alike, is not local, but general.
The prosecution in this case was for a violation of section 2 of the act approved September 22, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 576). The Legislature has the power to delegate to the court of county commissioners the power to establish, promulgate, and enforce rules and regulations with reference to the public roads of the county. This has been done by the act supra. The Legislature, by section 2 of the act, prescribed a penalty for the violation of the regulations when adopted and promulgated by the court of county commissioners. The foregoing is in line with the several rulings of this court in similar cases. Glenn v. City of Prattville, 14 Ala.App. 621, 71 So. 75; Bivins v. City of Montgomery, 13 Ala.App. 641, 69 So. 224; Wright v State, 3 Ala.App. 140, 57 So. 1023; Campbell v. State, 4 Ala.App. 104, 58 So. 125; Jordan v. State, 5 Ala.App. 229, 59 So. 710; Oliver v. State, 16 Ala.App. 533, 79 So. 313; Curlee v. State, 16 Ala.App. 62, 75 So. 268; Horn v. State (4 Div. 605) 84 So. 883. The prosecution is sustained by virtue of section 2 of the act of the Legislature approved September 22,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kirkpatrick
......943. If this conclusion affected the. result in this case, this question would be submitted to the. Supreme Court under the statute. The local act of 1919,. supra, must therefore be construed, in conjunction with the. local act of 1907, as well as with the following: Acts 1915,. p. 573; Posey v. State, 17 Ala. App. 448, 86 So. 117; Hicks v. State, 16 Ala. App. 88, 75 So. 636;. State v. Strawbridge, 16 Ala. App. 195, 76 So. 479,. Id., 201, Ala. 62, 77 So. 356; Oliver v. State, 16. Ala. App. 533, 79 So. 313; Mills v. Conecuh County,. 204 Ala. 40, 85 So. 564; Conecuh County v. Simmons ......
-
Harper v. State, 1 Div. 820
...also Bl. Com., Intro., pp. 71 and 72. This court twice applied the first paragraph in Simpson v. State, 111 Ala. 6, in Posey v. State, 17 Ala.App. 448, 86 So. 117, and Green v. State, 23 Ala.App. 63, 120 So. 468. Moreover, Thomas v. State, 107 Ala. 61, 17 So. 941, has never been questioned ......
-
Terry v. State
...941, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 499; Floyd v. State, 15 Ala. App. 654, 74 So. 752; Isbell v. State, 17 Ala. App. 465, 86 So. 169; Posey v. State, 17 Ala. App. 448, 86 So. 117; Oliver v. State, 16 Ala. App. 533, 79 So. The authority to declare that a violation of the regulations and laws adopted by......
-
State v. Shaughnessy
...... to make a law licensing and regulating motor vehicles, as. defined in the act, and conferred it upon the commissioners. of each and all the counties of Nevada. If further authority. be desired for the conclusion reached, we cite Hill v. Moody, 207 Ala. 325, 93 So. 422; Posey v. State, 17 Ala. App. 448, 86 So. 117; Haddad v. State, 23 Ariz. 105, 201 P. 847; State v. Duval. County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 So. 693; Com. v. Slocum, 230 Mass. 180, 119 N.E. 687; Locke's Appeal,. 72 Pa. 491, 13 Am. Rep. 716; 13 R. C. L. p. 79, § 70. . . It is. insisted ......