State v. Chittester
| Decision Date | 09 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. CC809,CC809 |
| Citation | 139 W.Va. 268,79 S.E.2d 845 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. CHITTESTER. |
Syllabus by the Court.
Vehicles having more than two axles, of which any two or more comprise a definite group, are subject to the maximum load limitations contained in the tables set forth in Chapter 17C, Article 17, Section 9(b), of Chapter 129, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1951, the basis for calculation being the distance between the first and last axles of such definite group, without regard to the overall wheel base.
John G. Fox, Atty. Gen., Virginia Mae Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
Hardin R. Harmer, Shinnston, for defendant.
The defendant, Paul R. Chittester, is the owner of a truck having three axles. The distance between the first and second axles is thirteen feet, and the second and third axles four feet, making the overall distance between the first and third axles seventeen feet. He was indicated by the grand jury attending the November, 1951 Term of the Criminal Court of Harrison County for knowingly and unlawfully permitting said truck to be operated on the highways of this State with a gross weight of 34,450 pounds on the second and third axles.
A special plea was filed to the indictment, setting forth that the permissible load per axle is 18,000 pounds; that the permissible and legal load upon the second and third axles is 36,000 pounds, plus a tolerance of 5%; that the permissible and legal load for the overall wheel base of seventeen feet is 41,160 pounds; and that the operation of the truck at the time and place alleged in the indictment was in accordance with the laws of this State. The State demurred to the special plea on the grounds that it contravened the provisions of Chapter 17C of Chapter 129, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1951.
The demurrer was sustained, and the question certified to the Circuit Court of Harrison County, which affirmed the Criminal Court's ruling, and, upon joint motion of the parties, the question was certified to this Court.
Chapter 17C, Article 17, Secs. 8 and 9, of Chapter 129, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1951, provide:
§ 8: 'Single-axle Load Limit.--(a) The gross weight imposed on the highway by the wheels of any one axle of a vehicle shall not exceed eighteen thousand pounds.
'(b) For the purpose of this article an axle load shall be defined as the total load transmitted to the road by all wheels whose centers are included between two parallel transverse vertical planes forty inches apart, extending across the full width of the vehicle.
§ 9: 'Gross Weight of Vehicles and Loads.--(a) It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee or borrower to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles of a gross weight in excess of the gross weight for which such vehicle or combination of vehicles is registered or in excess of the limitation set forth in this chapter.
'(b) Subject to the limit upon the weight imposed upon the highway through any one axle as set forth in section eight of this article the total gross weight with load imposed upon the highway by any one group of two or more consecutive axles of a vehicle or combination of vehicles shall not exceed the gross weight given for the respective distance between the first and last axle of the total group of axles measure longitudinally to the nearest foot as set forth in the following table:
'Distance in feet between first and Maximum load in pounds on group of axles
last axles of group
4 32,000
5 32,000
6 32,000
7 32,000
8 32,610
9 33,580
10 34,550
11 35,510
12 36,470
13 37,420
14 38,360
15 39,300
16 40,230
17 41,160
* * *
* * *
'Provided, That in no event shall the gross weight of any vehicle, including its load, exceed sixty thousand eight hundred pounds.'
The defendant maintains that the words 'total group of axles', as used in Subsection (b) of § 9,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars
...428, 82 S.E.2d 913; Lane v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement and Benefit Fund, 139 W.Va. 878, 82 S.E.2d 179; State v. Chittester, 139 W.Va. 268, 79 S.E.2d 845; State ex rel. Mountain Fuel Company v. Trent, 138 W.Va. 737, 77 S.E.2d 608; Appalachian Electric Power Company v. Koontz,......
-
State ex rel. Fox v. Board of Trustees of Policemen's Pension or Relief Fund of City of Bluefield
...Employees' Retirement and Benefit Fund, 139 W.Va. 878, 82 S.E.2d 179; State v. Abdella, 139 W.Va. 428, 82 S.E.2d 913; State v. Chittester, 139 W.Va. 268, 79 S.E.2d 845; State ex rel. Mountain Fuel Company v. Trent, 138 W.Va. 737, 77 S.E.2d 608; Cawley v. The Board of Trustees of the Firemen......
-
Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc.
...use.'" State ex rel. Dep't. of Transp. v. Sommerville, 186 W.Va. 271, 273, 412 S.E.2d 269, 271 (1991), quoting State v. Chittester, 139 W.Va. 268, 272, 79 S.E.2d 845, 847 (1954) (emphasis added).16 Indeed, we expressly held in syllabus point 11 of Price v. Halstead, 177 W.Va. 592, 355 S.E.2......
-
Terry v. State Compensation Commissioner
...Employees' Retirement and Benefit Fund, 139 W.Va. 878, 82 S.E.2d 179; State v. Abdella, 139 W.Va. 428, 82 S.E.2d 913; State v. Chittester, 139 W.Va. 268, 79 S.E.2d 845; State ex rel. Mountain Fuel Company v. Trent, 138 W.Va. 737, 77 S.E.2d 608; Appalachian Electric Power Company v. Koontz, ......