State v. Seraphine

• Decision Date: 02 February 1954
• Citation: 62 N.W.2d 403,266 Wis. 118
• Parties: STATE, v. SERAPHINE. STATE, v. EDWARD LUTZ SAND & GRAVEL CO., Inc.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 403

62 N.W.2d 403

266 Wis. 118

STATE, v. SERAPHINE.

STATE, v. EDWARD LUTZ SAND & GRAVEL CO., Inc.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 2, 1954.

The defendant Edward Lutz Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., was charged with two separate violations of section 85.47(1)(a), Stats. The defendant Milton Vernon Seraphine was charged with a violation of section 85.47(1)(d). These statutory provisions limit the weight of loads to be hauled over the highways of the state, and the penalties for overloading are graduated so that the greater the overload the greater the fine provided. It was not disputed that the trucks were overloaded, nor was there any dispute as to the extent of the overload. With reference to the violations with which the Lutz Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., was charged, the facts were stipulated as follows:

'That on the 25th day of June, 1952, defendant's driver and employee, Francis Hillier, was operating a Mack tandem axle motor truck over and along the marked route of U. S. Highway No. 41 and within the corporate limits of the Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin.

'That at the aforesaid time and place the gross weight with load imposed on said highway by two consecutive axles of said truck was 38,150 pounds. That the distance between the first and last axles of the group under consideration was 4 feet to the nearest foot.

'That on the 25th day of June, 1952, defendant's driver and employee, Harold Knepel, was operating a White single axle motor truck along the marked route of U. S. Highway No. 41 and within the corporate limits of the Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin.

'That at the aforesaid time and place the gross weight with load of the rear axle of said motor truck was 21,620 pounds.'

With reference to the offense with which the defendant Milton Vernon Seraphine was charged, the facts were stipulated as follows:

'That on the 25th day of June, 1952, the defendant did operate a tractor-trailer motor vehicle combination over and along U. S. Highway No. 41 within the corporate limits of the Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin.

'That at the aforesaid time and place the gross weight with load imposed on said highway by two consecutive axles of said motor vehicle was 33,750 pounds. That the distance between the first and the last axles of the group under consideration was 4 feet to the nearest foot.'

Pleas of not guilty were entered on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional. The trial court found the defendants guilty as to each offense charged. The defendant Edward Lutz Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., was sentenced to pay two separate fines, one of $267.20 and the other $868.50, and the defendant Milton Vernon Seraphine was fined $275. Separate appeals were taken from each of the judgments, and the appeals were consolidated by stipulation.

A. L. Tilton, Milwaukee, for appellants.

Vernon W. Thomson, Atty. Gen., Stewart G. Honeck, Deputy Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BROADFOOT, Justice.

Section 85.47(1)(a) and (d), Stats., deal with overloads on Class 'A' highways. It is the first contention of the defendants upon this appeal that the state failed to prove that the highway upon which the defendants were traveling at the time of the alleged violations was a Class 'A' highway. The statutes provide that state trunk highways and connecting streets shall be designated as Class 'A' highways. The highways in this state designated as U. S. highways are actually a part of the state trunk highway system. Thus, the stipulations indicate that the three alleged violations occurred on a street in the village of Menomonee Falls, constituting a part of the marked route of U. S. Highway No. 41. The weight limitations on Class 'B' highways are less than those provided for on Class 'A' highways. Thus it was to the advantage of the defendants to be charged with violations upon a Class 'A' highway. They were not prejudiced thereby, but in any event the stipulations, in view of the various statutory provisions, show that the alleged violations were upon a Class 'A' highway.

It is next contended that the statutes are unconstitutional in that the penalty sections provide for excessive fines, in violation of section 6, art. I, of the Wisconsin constitution. The parties agree that the rule to be followed in determining whether or not a fine is excessive is correctly stated in 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1978(c), page 1191, as follows:

'The courts are reluctant to say that the legislature has exceeded its power in authorizing excessive fines, and as a general rule will not do so except in a very clear case; and, therefore, the widest latitude should be given to the discretion and judgment of the legislature in determining the amount necessary to accomplish the object and purpose it has in view. In determining whether a fine authorized by statute is excessive in the constitutional sense, due regard must be had to the object designed to be accomplished, to the importance and magnitude of the public interest sought to be protected, to the...