State v. Larkin, (Nos. 6286, 6287.)

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtLITZ, J
Citation149 S.E. 667
Docket Number(Nos. 6286, 6287.)
Decision Date17 September 1929
PartiesSTATE. v. LARKIN. SAME. v. SIMMONS.

149 S.E. 667

STATE.
v.
LARKIN.
SAME.
v.
SIMMONS.

(Nos. 6286, 6287.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Sept. 17, 1929.


(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Raleigh County.

James Larkin and Harry Simmons were each convicted of receiving passengers within 200 feet of building maintained as designated stop in operation of bus line over regular

[149 S.E. 668]

route, and they severally bring error. Reversed and remanded.

Brown W. Payne, of Beckley, for plaintiffs in error.

Howard B. Eee, Atty. Gen., and W. Elliott Nefflen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LITZ, J. The defendant in each of these cases was tried before a justice of the peace of Raleigh county on a warrant charging him, while operating an automobile for hire under a class H-3 license, with receiving passengers within 200 feet of a building at Lester, Raleigh county, maintained as a designated stop by D. S. Hill and J. E. Tolbert in the operation of a bus line over a regular route, in violation of section 82, chapter 17, Acts 1925, which provides:

"All vehicles operating under the provisions of class H-3, shall operate from a stand or stands and the road commission shall have power to grant a certificate to any applicant who operates from a stand or stands, and who does not propose to operate upon a regular schedule, but who is privately employed for a specific trip and who will not solicit or receive patronage along a route for which a certificate of convenience has been granted by the state road commission for the operation of vehicles over a regular route or between fixed termini. Provided, however, that vehicles operating under class H-3 may receive passengers along routes for which a certificate of convenience has been granted, but not at or within two hundred feet of any building owned or maintained as a designated stop."

Upon appeals from judgments of conviction before the justice, the defendants were tried and convicted in the criminal court of Raleigh county. The evidence tends to prove that each of the defendants, while operating an automobile as an employee of James Nelson under class H-3 license, received passengers at a stand, established and maintained by Nelson in conducting the business, within 200 feet of a terminus, but not between the termini or along the route over which the bus line was operated. Each defendant contends that such proof is insufficient to justify his conviction. As the alleged violation of neither defendant is shown to be within the letter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • State v. Cain, No. 17024
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 17, 1987
    ...extended by construction, but must be limited to cases clearly within its language and spirit.' Syl. pt. , State v. Larkin, 107 W.Va. 580, 149 S.E. 667 We note that W.Va.Code, 61-11-19 [1943] does not explicitly prohibit a prosecuting attorney from filing an amendment or amendments to a rec......
  • State Ex Rel. Koontz v. Bd. Of Park Com'rs Of City Of Huntington, No. 9992.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 27, 1948
    ...board of park commissioners and that the board is not within either the letter or the spirit of the act. State v. Larkin, 107 W.Va. 580, 149 S.E. 667; Clear Fork Coal Co. v. Anchor Coal Co., 105 W.Va, 570, 144 S.E. 409; Diddle v. Continental Casualty Co., 65 W.Va. 170, 63 S.E. 962, 22 L.R.A......
  • State v. Scott, No. 30692.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 7, 2003
    ...by construction, but must be limited to cases clearly within its language and spirit." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Larkin, 107 W.Va. 580, 149 S.E. 667 With these standards in mind, we consider the parties' arguments. III. Discussion The parties dispute whether and how, under W.Va.Code, 25-4-......
  • State Ex Tel. C. H. Koontz As State Tax Comm'r v. The Bd. Of Park Comm'rs Of The City Of Huntington, (No. 9992)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 27, 1948
    ...board of park commissioners and that the board is not within either the letter or the spirit of the act. State v. Larkin, 107 W. Va. 580, 149 S. E. 667; Clear Fork Coal Co. v. Anchor Coal Co., 105 W. Va. 570, 144 S. E. 409; Diddle v. Continental Casualty Co., 65 W. Va. 170, 63 S. E. 962, 22......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • State v. Cain, No. 17024
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 17, 1987
    ...extended by construction, but must be limited to cases clearly within its language and spirit.' Syl. pt. , State v. Larkin, 107 W.Va. 580, 149 S.E. 667 We note that W.Va.Code, 61-11-19 [1943] does not explicitly prohibit a prosecuting attorney from filing an amendment or amendments to a rec......
  • State Ex Rel. Koontz v. Bd. Of Park Com'rs Of City Of Huntington, No. 9992.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 27, 1948
    ...board of park commissioners and that the board is not within either the letter or the spirit of the act. State v. Larkin, 107 W.Va. 580, 149 S.E. 667; Clear Fork Coal Co. v. Anchor Coal Co., 105 W.Va, 570, 144 S.E. 409; Diddle v. Continental Casualty Co., 65 W.Va. 170, 63 S.E. 962, 22 L.R.A......
  • State v. Scott, No. 30692.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 7, 2003
    ...by construction, but must be limited to cases clearly within its language and spirit." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Larkin, 107 W.Va. 580, 149 S.E. 667 With these standards in mind, we consider the parties' arguments. III. Discussion The parties dispute whether and how, under W.Va.Code, 25-4-......
  • State Ex Tel. C. H. Koontz As State Tax Comm'r v. The Bd. Of Park Comm'rs Of The City Of Huntington, (No. 9992)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 27, 1948
    ...board of park commissioners and that the board is not within either the letter or the spirit of the act. State v. Larkin, 107 W. Va. 580, 149 S. E. 667; Clear Fork Coal Co. v. Anchor Coal Co., 105 W. Va. 570, 144 S. E. 409; Diddle v. Continental Casualty Co., 65 W. Va. 170, 63 S. E. 962, 22......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT