State v. Schwartzman Service, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1931
• Docket Number: No. 21670.,21670.
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT, v. SCHWARTZMAN SERVICE, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

40 S.W.2d 479

STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT, v. SCHWARTZMAN SERVICE, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT.

No. 21670.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Opinion filed July 3, 1931.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County. — Hon. Wm. C. Hughes, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Angert, George C. Dyer and W.F. Drescher, Jr., for appellant.

(1) There is no law in the State of Missouri limiting the gross weight load of a trailer operated upon a highway in the State of Missouri. Section 7788, Revised Statutes 1929 (Laws of 1925, p. 295, section 2); Sec. 7759, Revised Statutes 1929 (Laws of 1929, p. 262, sec. 3); 42 Corpus Juris, p. 609; American-La France Fire Engine Co. v. Riordan, 294 Fed. 567; Leamon v. State, 17 Ohio App. 323; Liberty Highway Co. et al. v. Callahan et al., 157 N.E. 708; Walnitz v. Werner, 241 S.W. 668; Sec. 7792, Revised Statutes 1929 (Laws of 1925, p. 296, Sec. 4). (2) Separate statutes relating to the same general subject should be construed together when determining the meaning of the words used in any one section of the statutes. Easton v. Courtwright, 84 Mo. 27; Grimes v. Reynolds, 68 S.W. 588, 94 Mo. App. 576, affirmed 83 S.W. 1132, 184 Mo. 679. (3) Where the wording of a statute is unambiguous the court must give to the words used in a statute their plain and concise meaning, and especially so where such meaning would not result in any ridiculous or unwarranted construction of the statute. Clark v. Kansas City, St. L. & C.R. Co., 118 S.W. 40; Walnitz v. Werner, 241 S.W. 661. (4) Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed and the courts cannot by "judicial legislation" extend the meaning of a criminal statute to include a situation or case not specifically covered by the plain and concise meaning of the words used in said statute. State v. Lloyd, 7 S.W. (2d) 344: State v. Bartley, 263 S.W. 95, 304 Mo. 58; Tucker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 233 S.W. 512, 250 S.W. 390, 298 Mo. 51; State ex inf. Collins v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 142 S.W. 279, 238 Mo. 605; State v. Shartell, 156 S.W. 988, 174 Mo. App. 153.

Alvin H. Juergensmeyer, Prosecuting Attorney for Warren County, John W. Mather and Jean Paul Bradshaw, of counsel for respondent.

(1) There is a law in the State of Missouri limiting the gross weight load of a trailer operating upon a highway in the Sttate of Missouri. (a) The question before this court on appeal is: Did the Legislature intend to restrict the size and weight of "trailers" operating over the state highways of Missouri? (b) The statute in question on this appeal is the State Highway Weight Law appearing at page 295, Laws of 1925, and now found at sections 7787 to 7792, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for 1929. State v. Knowles, 90 Md. 646, 45 Atl. 877, 49 L.R.A. 695; State ex rel. v. Imes, 219 S.W. 634, 280 Mo. 554; In re Ray's Estate, 156 S.W. 759, 174 Mo. App. 202; State ex rel. Major v. Ryan, 133 S.W. 8, 233 Mo. 77. (2) Courts will construe a statute so as to effectuate the true intent of the Legislature. (a) In construing a statute the courts will refer to the preamble. 2 Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), sec. 370, p. 712; Grimes v. Reynolds, 68 S.W. 588, 94 Mo. App. 576, affirmed 83 S.W. 1132, 184 Mo. 679; State ex rel. v. Gemelich, 106 S.W. 618, 208 Mo. 152; State ex rel v. McQuillin, 152 S.W. 347, 246 Mo. 517; State ex rel. Tuller v. Seehorn, 151 S.W. 724, 246 Mo. 568; State v. Douglas, 278 S.W. 1016, 312 Mo. 373; Coppel v. Rowland, 4 S.W. (2d) 816, 319 Mo. 602; State on Inf. v. Broeker, 11 S.W. (2d) (Mo. App.), 81; 36 Cyc. (Statutes) 1132; Connecticut Mutal Life Insurance Co. v. Albert, 38 Mo. 181; Sedalia ex rel. v. Smith, 206 Mo. l.c. 361; Black on Interpretation of Laws, Sec. 76, page 171; Dart v. Bagley, 110 Mo. l.c. 51; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 145 S.W. 801, 241 Mo. 231; Dahlin v. Mo. Commission for the Blind, 262 S.W. 420; Williams v. St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co., 7 S.W. (2d) 392; 2 Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 339. (b) Courts will not give to a statute an unreasonable construction. State v. Boeker, 11 S.W. (2d) 81; State ex rel. Jamison v. St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co., 318 Mo. 285, 300 S.W. 274; Bassen v. Monckton, 308 Mo. 641, 274 S.W. 404; State ex rel. Moesley v. Lee, 5 S.W. (2d) 83; State v. Duckworth, 297 S.W. 150. (3) The Legislature in the 1925 Weight Law has effectively expressed its intention to limit the size and weight of trailers operated over the highways of Missouri. (a) Although a criminal statute should be construed liberally in favor of the defendant and strictly against the State yet the courts will always give to a criminal statute a reasonable construction. State v. Billing, 100 Mo. l.c. 92; State v. Combs, 273 S.W. (Mo.) l.c. 1039; State v. Duckworth, 297 S.W. (Mo.) l.c. 151; Fanny (a slave) v. State, 6 Mo. 122; Hanna v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 217 Mo. App. 671, 263 S.W. 526; Stark v. General Baking Co., 283 Mo. 346, 223 S.W. 89; Bassen v. Monckton, 308 Mo. 641, 649, 274 S.W. 407; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 241 Mo. 231. (b) The construction of the 1925 Weight Law offered by the State embodies a reasonable and necessary interpretation of this statute. Finding of Trial Court, p. 11, Appellant's Abstract of the Record.

SUTTON, C.

This as a prosecution on information of the prosecuting attorney of Warren county, under an act of the Fifty-third General Assembly (Session Laws 1925, page 295), entitled as follows:

"An Act to prescribe the maximum size, width, length and weight, including load, limits of motor vehicles, and combination of motor vehicles, operating upon the public highways of this State, to prescribe penalties for violation of this act... . and to repeal all laws or parts of laws inconsistent with this act."

Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the act, are as follows:

"1. No motor vehicle shall be operated on the highways of this State whose width, including load, is greater than ninety-six inches, or a greater height than twelve and one-half feet, or a greater length than thirty feet, and no combination of vehicles coupled together shall be so operated whose total length, including load, shall be greater than sixty feet. Provided, however, that this restriction of sixty feet shall not apply to motor propelled vehicles transporting farm implements nor farm products.

"2. No motor vehicle, except a combination of tractor and semi-trailer, the gross weight of which, including load, is more than 24,000 pounds, and no combination of tractor and semi-trailer, the gross weight of which, including load, is more than 38,000 pounds, and no motor vehicle having a greater weight than 16,000 pounds on one axle, and no motor vehicle having a load of over 600 pounds per inch width of tire upon any wheel concentrated upon the surface of the highway (said width in the case of rubber tires, both solid and pneumatic, to be measured between the flanges of the rim), shall be operated on the highways of this State; provided a combination of tractor and semi-trailer shall be considered a vehicle of six (6) wheels for the purpose of computing the distribution of the load.

"4. Any person, firm, corporation, partnership or association violating any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five dollars ($5.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in a county jail for a term of not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

"5. All laws or parts of laws in conflict or inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed."

The information, which is founded on section 2 of the act, charges that the defendant, on September 7, 1930, in Warren county, unlawfully operated, on State Highway No. 40, a motor vehicle, to-wit, one trailer, the gross weight of which, including load, was more than 24,000 pounds.

The cause was tried before the court without a jury, on an agreed statement of facts, as follows:

"On September 7, 1930, at the county of Warren, defendant operated on Highway No. 40, a truck train consisting of a tractor, semi-trailer and trailer, the trailer being a four-wheeled vehicle, not self-propelling, and none of the weight of which rested upon the semi-trailer and tractor, or either of them. At said time the gross weight of said trailer, including load, was in excess of 24,000 pounds."

The trial resulted in a judgment convicting the defendant of the offense charged in the information, and imposing a fine of $50. Defendant appeals.

The defendant contends that a trailer is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. Defendant argues that since a trailer is not a self-propelled vehicle — that is, since it is not a vehicle propelled by a power developed within itself — it is, therefore, not a motor vehicle, and may be loaded without limit, and so operated on the highways. In other words, defendant argues that though the statute limits the weight of a truck or other self-propelled vehicle, to 24,000 pounds, and the weight on the axle of such vehicle to 16,000 pounds, and the weight per inch of the width of the tire upon any wheel concentrated upon the surface of the highway to 600 pounds, there is no limit to the weight of a trailer, or the weight upon any axle of a trailer, or the weight per inch width of the tire of any wheel of a trailer.

The purpose of the statute, manifestly, is to protect the highways of the State from the damage that may be done by vehicles of excessive weight. It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to protect the highways from damage from overloaded trucks and other self-propelled vehicles, while permitting the same mischief to be done by trailers drawn by such self-propelled vehicles.

It is a cardinal rule, universally accepted, that, in the exposition of a statute, the intention of the lawmaker will prevail over the literal sense of the terms; its reason and intention will...