Case ID: sw_244/html/0604-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "I-IAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte CARRIGAN.
    (No. 6916.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 4, 1922.)
    I. Statutes &wkey;>141 (2) —Amendments adding penal section to act regulating motor vehicles held not to violate prohibition of amendment by reference to title without re-enactment at length.
    Acts 35th Leg'. 1st Called Sess. (1917) c. 31, and Acts 35th Leg. 3d Called Sess. c. 13, amending Acts 35th Leg. Reg. Sess. c. 207, as to operation of motor vehicles, by adding a section thereto, providing a penalty which was not attached to the regulation, and making no change in the original act, held not invalid under Const, art. 3, § 36, prohibiting amendment of a law by reference to its title without reenacting and publishing the same at length.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l3 — Statute relating to the careful operation of vehicles invalid for uncertainty.
    Acts 35th Leg. (1917) c. 207, § 16, provid-, ing vehicles shall be operated in a careful manner with due regard for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and all other vehicles, and that part of section 201 as to driving more than 18 miles an hour on streets and highways of a city where the contiguous territory is’ closely built up, held invalid for uncertainty.
    Original application by J. B. Carrigan for writ of habeas corpus to relieve him against a charge of violation of a state law.
    Relator discharged.
    Barlow & Barlow, of Austin, for appellant.
    J. Bouldin Rector, City ,Atty., of Austin,, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the. State.
   I-IAWKINS, J.

Complaint was lodged against relator in the corporation court of Austin charging him with violating a state law. The first count alleges (hat he operated an automobile on the streets and highways in the said city where the territory contiguous thereto was “closely built up” at a-greater rate of speed than 18 miles per hour; the second count charges that he operated said automobile in a careless and reckless manner without due regard for the safety, and convenience of pedestrians and other-vehicles and the traffic upon the streets and highways. The acts complained of were denounced in subdivision “a,”- § 16, and section 20, Acts Reg. Sess. 35th Leg. (1917) c. 207, and carried forward in .Complete Texas Statutes as articles 820 (k) and 820 (o). No penalty was attached to the violation of said sections by the first enactment, but the same Legislature (1st Called Sess. c. 31, § 45, and 3d Called Sess. c. 13. § 45, art. 820 [yy]) provided a penalty.

An original application for writ of habeas corpus was presented to this court attacking the validity of the act of the Legislature providing a penalty on the ground, among others that it violated section 36, art. 3, of the Constitution, prohibiting the amendment of a law by reference to its title without re-enacting ’ and publishing the same at-length. The record before us permits a disposition of the case without the necessity of considering the question suggested. It is discussed, however, and settled adversely to relatóos contention in No. 6462, Ex parte Jonischkies (Tex. Cr. App.) 244 S. W. 997, this day decided.

Tlie portion of sections 16 and 20 (articles 820 [k] and 820 [o] under which relator was charged with careless and reckless driving has already been held by this court to be invalid as too indefinite and vague to be enforceable. Russell v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 512, 228 S. W. 566; Snider v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 230 S. W. 146; Parroccini v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 320, 234 S. W. 671. For the same reason that portion of section 20 (article 820 [o]) under which relator was charged in the first count with driving more than 18 miles per hour in a “closely built up section” has been held invalid. No 6871, Ex parte S. S. Slaughter (Tex. Cr. App.) decided May 31,1922, and reported in 243 S. W. 478. The question was discussed at length in the several cases cited and many authorities noted. To again review this matter would be useless.

It follows that relator must be discharged. 
      ér^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes