State v. Lawler

Decision Date22 April 1959
Docket NumberNo. 8732,8732
Citation81 Idaho 171,338 P.2d 264
PartiesSTATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank F. LAWLER, Defendant-Appellant
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

Boyd R. Thomas, Idaho Falls, for appellant.

Graydon W. Smith, former Atty. Gen., Frank L. Benson, Atty. Gen., Robert D Wennergren and Wm. E. Swope, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Hugh C. Maguire, Jr., Pros. Atty., Pocatello, for respondent.

KNUDSON, Justice.

This action was presented to the trial court and is here upon a stipulation of facts the pertinent parts of which are as follows:

It is hereby stipulated between Hugh C. Maguire, Jr., prosecuting attorney for Bannock County, and Edward W. Pike, attorney for Frank F. Lawler, that the facts in the above entitled case are as follows:

That on March 17, 1956, at 11:40 a. m. a truck and trailer belonging to the V-1 Oil Company, Idaho Falls, Idaho, and driven in the scope of his employment by Frank F. Lawler, employee of the V-1 Oil Company, entered the McCammon Port of Entry grounds on U.S. highways 91-191, Bannock County, Idaho, and was weighed by Idaho State Police Officer M. F. Olsen. The truck was a 1950 Kenworth, unit No. 42, motor No. 601119, serial No. 58515, bearing Idaho 1956 truck plate No. 3786 and use-fee tab No. 13966, and a trailer bearing 1956 Idaho trailer plate No. 31521 and use-fee tab No. 13967.

This truck and trailer was registered in Idaho for the year 1956 for a declared combined gross weight of 72,000 lbs. The actual scale weight of these vehicles as recorded by the Port of Entry scales was: front axle, 8,300 lbs.; driver axle, 29,500 lbs.; front trailer axle, 17,800 lbs.; rear trailer axle, 17,750 lbs., this being a total gross weight of 73,350 lbs. and being in excess of the registration of this truck and trailer combination of 1,350 lbs.

It is further stipulated that the driver in charge of these vehicles, Frank F. Lawler, was issued a citation, No. 28889, by Officer M. F. Olsen, Idaho State Police, charging Lawler with operating this truck and trailer under section 49-127e of the Idaho Motor Vehicle Code, in that he operated these vehicles in violation by exceeding his registered and declared gross weight of these vehicles by 1350 lbs.

The offense with which appellant is charged is operating the vehicles described in the stipulation upon the highway when their combined gross weight exceeded by 1,350 lbs. the registered and declared maximum gross weight of such vehicles, allegedly in violation of Sec. 49-132 I.C. (formerly identified as Sec. 49-127e I.C.) The trial court adjudged defendant guilty and entered judgment accordingly, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The only statute directly involved is said Sec. 49-132 I.C. which provides as follows:

'Penalties for exceeding maximum gross weight.--Any person who shall operate or cause, permit, or suffer to be operated upon any highway of this state any vehicle with a maximum gross weight in excess of the maximum gross weight for which the same has been registered under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to have set a new maximum gross weight and shall, in addition to any penalties otherwise provided in this section, be required to pay the additional fees as to such new maximum gross weight; provided, however, that if the combined gross weight of a combination of vehicles shall not exceed the maximum gross weight for which the combination of vehicles was registered under the provisions of this act then it shall be lawful for the maximum gross weight on any one unit of the combination of units to exceed the maximum gross weight for which the same was registered by 10% of such registered maximum gross weight. Any person who shall operate cause, permit, or suffer to be operated upon any highway of this state any vehicle or combination of vehicles with a maximum gross weight in excess of the maximum gross weight permitted by this chapter, without having paid the additional registration and use fees required, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon first conviction shall be required to pay a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00); upon a second conviction to pay a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00); and upon a third conviction to pay a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100.00).'

The admitted fact is that appellant, at the time it is claimed that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire and Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 4 Junio 1986
    ...the clear express intent of the legislature must be given effect and there is no occasion of construction." " State v. Lawler, 81 Idaho 171, 175, 338 P.2d 264, 266 (1959). An "uninsured" vehicle is clearly not the same as an "unidentified" vehicle. The statute directs that coverage be made ......
  • Hammon v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 11 Julio 1985
    ...the clear express intent of the legislature must be given effect and there is no occasion of construction." State v. Lawler, 81 Idaho 171, 175, 338 P.2d 264, 266 (1959). An "uninsured" vehicle is clearly not the same as an "unidentified" vehicle. The statute directs that coverage be made av......
  • Kent v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 27 Mayo 1970
    ...In re Potlatch Forests, 72 Idaho 291, 240 P.2d 242 (1952); Tway v. Williams, 81 Idaho 1, 336 P.2d 115 (1959); State v. Lawler, 81 Idaho 171, 338 P.2d 264 (1959); State v. Riley, 83 Idaho 346, 362 P.2d 1075 (1961); State v. Prince, 64 Idaho 343, 132 P.2d 146 (1942); Blue Note, Inc. v. Hopper......
  • Cameron v. Lakeland Class A School Dist. No. 272, Kootenai County
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1960
    ...169 P.2d 345; State ex rel. Haworth v. Berntsen, 68 Idaho 539, 200 P.2d 1007; Tway v. Williams, 81 Idaho 1, 336 P.2d 115; State v. Lawler, 81 Idaho 171, 338 P.2d 264. Appellants' first assignment is without Appellants' second assignment of error questions the constitutionality of the last p......
  • 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