State v. Orr

• Decision Date: 17 January 1894
• Citation: 57 N.W. 412,89 Iowa 613
• Parties: THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM ORR, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

57 N.W. 412

89 Iowa 613

THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM ORR, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 17, 1894

Appeal from Jones District Court.--HON. J. H. PRESTON, Judge.

THE defendant was convicted, before a justice of the peace, for a violation of chapter 68, Acts of the Twenty-Fourth General Assembly, with reference to driving steam engines over bridges and culverts without the use of planks. He appealed to the district court, where he was again convicted, and he then appealed to this court.

Reversed.

Sheean & McCarn, for appellant.

John Y Stone, Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

GRANGER, C. J.

I.

The information upon which the defendant was tried is as follows "The above named defendant is hereby accused of the crime of driving and operating a steam engine over bridges and culverts without planks, for that the defendant, on the twenty-third day of September, A. D. 1892, at and within Madison township, in said county, did willfully and unlawfully drive a steam engine over certain bridges and culverts on the public highway within Jones county, Iowa without laying down and using planks, as required by law, contrary to the statutes in such case made and provided. " The following are the important provisions of the act defining the offense, and providing the punishment.

Section 2. "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive a steam engine over any bridge or culvert on any public highway in this state without using four strong planks, each to be not less than twelve feet long, one foot wide and two inches thick; two of said planks to be kept continuously under the wheels of said engine while crossing said bridge or culvert."

Section 4. "Any owner of a steam engine who by himself, agent or employee shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall for each offense be fined not less than ten dollars, nor more than fifty dollars."

There was a demurrer to the information, on the ground that it did not show that the defendant was the owner of the engine which was overruled. It should have been sustained. Section 2 of the act defines an offense, and it may be committed by "any person." Section 4 provides a punishment for a violation of the act, but limits it to any owner of a steam engine." There is a clear omission, intentional or otherwise, to make a violation of the act punishable by any person except an owner. There is some reason for thinking that it was intended to make the owner liable to punishment for whoever might be the driver of his engine, because of the language "by himself, agent, or employee." But with that...