Rogers v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 28 December 1934 |
| Citation | 117 Fla. 760,158 So. 430 |
| Parties | ROGERS v. CUNNINGHAM, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Original proceeding in habeas corpus by A. L. Rogers against E. G Cunningham, as Sheriff of Pinellas County.
Petitioner discharged from custody.
W. B. Dickenson, of Tampa, for petitioner.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C O.Wright, of Palatka, Atty. for State Road Department, for respondent.
A. L Rogers obtained from this court a writ of habeas corpus and seeks his discharge from custody alleging that he was arrested and is detained by the sheriff of Pinellas county, E. G. Cunningham, upon a warrant issuing out of the justice of the peace court for that county charging that Rogers, the petitioner, operated on the public highways of Pinellas county 'one truck and trailer combined (semi-trailer) which weight did exceed the State law.'
A preliminary hearing was held before the justice of the peace. Evidence was taken, and the justice of the peace certified that he found that 'A. L. Rodgers, is guilty of driving a truck and trailer on the highways of the State of Florida with a load on the trailer in excess of that allowed under the regulations of the State Road Department.' The justice of the peace ordered that Rogers be 'bound over for trial in this court upon the said charge.'
The sheriff's return to the writ of habeas corpus averred that he held Rogers 'under and by virtue of commitment issued out of the Justice's Court after preliminary trial of the said A. L. Rogers, ordering him committed pending his trial.'
No technical point is made by the petitioner that the charge is indefinite, and that his commitment was for an alleged offense not embraced within the language in which the alleged offense is described in the warrant. So no further attention will be paid to that.
All parties seem to desire an opinion from this court as to whether a truck and trailer such as Rogers drove is within the provisions of the law limiting the weight to be carried by a semitrailer. The petitioner insists that the type of trailer attached to the truck he drove should not be classed as a semitrailer.
Section 1280, Compiled General Laws, defines a semitrailer as 'any two wheel vehicle coupled to or drawn by any motor vehicle.'
The truck driven by the petitioner was a four-wheel truck of three-ton capacity equipped with four pneumatic rubber tires, each of the front tires being seven inches in diameter. The trailer had four wheels, pneumatic tires seven and a half inches in diameter. The four wheels of the trailer are located near or toward the center of the vehicle, instead of one at each of the four corners. The trailer was coupled to the truck in the following manner. The load carrying platform is coupled to a solid pin connection on the truck over or near the rear axle of the truck and not by a loose coupling, thus eliminating the whipping effect usual with such loose couplings.
By the method of connection to the truck by means of a pin over the rear axle of the latter named vehicle, safety to those traveling upon the highway is increased, as well as convenience in long hauls and reduction of insurance to protect the public from accidents, and in addition thereto facilities for loading and unloading as the combined vehicle can by use of the truck machinery be placed in position readily for loading and unloading which cannot be so easily done in the case of a trailer fastened to the truck by a loose connection.
Chapter 16085, Laws of Florida 1933, provides that no four-wheel trailer equipped with pneumatic tires shall be operated on a public highway outside the limits of a municipal corporation carrying a load of more than 16,000 pounds, including the weight of the trailer, while a two-wheel or semi trailer equipped with such tires is limited to 3,000 pounds, including the weight of the trailer.
The evidence disclosed that, at the time the petitioner was arrested, the wheels of the truck were carrying a combined weight of 9,100 pounds, made up as follows: left rear wheel, 3,200 pounds; right rear wheel, 3,100; front wheels each, 1,400 pounds. The trailer carried a weight of 15,600 pounds distributed as follows: right and left rear wheels, 3,800 pounds; each right and left front wheel, 4,000 pounds each. Total weight of the combined vehicle as thus loaded being 24,700 pounds.
Clause 4 of the second division of paragraph C of section 3 of chapter 16085, supra, provides as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Stone
...the personal manual possession of the owner, and especially is this true in the light of the holding of this Court in the case of Rogers v. Cunningham, supra, to effect that the accused must be plainly and unmistakably brought within the statute to justify a conviction. In the case of City ......
-
South Carolina v. State, 3D16-2066.
...Leftwich committed his crimes and is consistent with legislative intent at the time the statute was enacted."); Rogers v. Cunningham, 117 Fla. 760, 158 So. 430, 432 (1934) ("It is not only useless, but not a function of the court, to supply words or omit them from the statute which destroy ......
-
Almanza v. State, 97-0449
...v. State, 391 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). As the supreme court observed in Rogers v. Cunningham, 117 Fla. 760, 158 So. 430, 432 (1934), if doubt exists as to the construction of a statute "prescribing punishment and penalties ... it is the duty of the cou......
-
Cole v. Heidt
... ... The bill of complaint was filed April 18, ... 1933. Decree pro confesso was entered against all parties ... except E. Cunningham, trustee. Thereafter, testimony was ... taken and final decree was entered on October 20, 1933 ... Master's report was filed on December 28, 1933, ... ...