THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

GERALD .C. MANN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Honorable B. A. Coe 

County Attorney 

Hardin County 

Kountze, Texas 

Dear Mr. Coe: Opinion No. O-2541 

Re: Validity of Article 834 of 

the Penal Code as amended 

by H. B. No. 583, Regular 

Session, 41st Legislature, 

1929. 

We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter 

of July 15, 1940, requesting an opinion as to the validity of Article 834 of the Penal Code, as amended by 

House Bill No. 583, at the regular session of the 41st 

Legislature (1929), your letter being in part as follows: 

"Please furnish me, at your earliest convenience, with a departmental opinion concerning the adoption by the Commissioners Court 

of an order prohibiting the operation over 

the county roads of vehicles with loads in 

excess of 5000 pounds under the provisions 

of Article 834, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code. 

"In view of the questions which have 

arisen, I deem it advisable to ask your department for a ruling upon the constitutionality of 

this article, since I am unable to find where it 

has ever been construed either by the courts or 

your department. 

"your attention is called to the fact that no 

specific load limit is mentioned in the article, 

but it gives to the Commissioners' Court, the 

superintendent, or the State Highway Commission 

the authority to regulate tonnage of trucks and 

heavy vehicles over roads when, presumably in 

their opinion, such use shall tend to rapidly 

deteriorate or destroy the roads, bridges, and 

culverts along any particular road." 
Honorable Il. A. Coo - Page 8 

Article 834 of the Penal Code, as it has been 

reoontly anmxled, is as follower 

*The ConndsEpioner8* Court of auy county 

eubjcot to this law actdng upon their owm 

amfiou, or through the 8uperintexlent., where 

one is employed, or the State Jllghway Cow 

ndomloa, shall hay0 the power am% authori* 

to regulate the tomfage oi trucks and heery 

+eUclso wblch by reason of the oonetructlou 

of tho rehlcle or Its weight and toxumge of the 

load shall teud to rapldly deteriorate or destroy the rods, bridgeo and oulyerts aloug 

the partioulru* roo& or h&pay sought to be 

proteoted, ti nQtloes shall be posted aul 

shall state the lnaximmload perndttedaml 

the tl.nm euoh use is -bited an%. shall be 

poeted upon the highway la such places as rill 

euable the drivers to make detours to ayoti 

the restricted hlgbvaJs or pol'tloue thereof. 

*If the owner or operator of any moh vehi010 feels himself ag@%eyed by such aatloa, 

he ms;l complain lu tritiug to the County Judge 

of suoh County, setting forth the nature of 

hlo grievance. Upon the tiling of such oomplrint, the County Judge shall fOrthWith cot 

down for hearing the issue thue raieed for a 

oertaln day, not more than tbreo &age later, 

an& a&all give notioe InWriting to suohroed 

offlolal of tho clay ami purpose of auah hearlag, and at suoh hearing the Count Judge shall 

hoar teotlmuy offered by the part 1 es respeotiyely, md upon ooncluelon thereof shall render 5uUgmnt euetainiug, reyoU.ug or podiipinc; 

suoh order theretofore nmde by the Couut && 

guueriutendent, ati the jtigmnt 0. n------5 the ouuty 

u&ge shall be final as to the lmaues so rai8eb. 

.lf upon SW& hoaziug tho judggmnt suctrius the order of the Oouuty guperinterdent, 

or the State Hif;hrcyr Conmdemion, aud it appears 

that w yiolatlon of sam M been oomdtted 

by the ooaplalnant daoe positing suoh nOtdOe@, 

he shall be subject to the same peualtp horeinafter preylded for suoh Qff0n80 as if same hod 

been Ootitt& eubeequent t0 th0 rOrrdit%on of 
Honorable B. A. Coe - Page 3 

l Wxy guilty of riolating the proviasnlaami tlonm of suob order of the Qounty 

~wlp8lrint~torakte~w~Co~~on, 

after it ha8 been so approved W nuoh judgment 

of the Oounty Judge mhall be finebnot~oeeding ho iluadred Dollara.' 

Theatestodby this general etatut4ry rule uf 

tallAity, 8e think Arti.ole 634 is wholly InoperrtAve, beoauw of If8 Ar&flalte and dwbtful SnwBLng in the f41- 

loving r4spootm 

1. Whether the power ud uathority to real&e 

thetonnageof truoka audhemvyvehlolesls oouforredupon 

the Ce~slonero~ Court either upon It8 wn action or 

aatlng throu@ the t3uperlntcrab4nf wh4re on4 lo onp14y4dd 

or the &ate iI&@wq CeraPdudoa, or19 llkev%w iM*pad4utl.y oonfarre8upon8uohBUpe~teulent,axl the at&o 

tU*way Gowclwlon at the opM.on of muoh 3uperintemleat 

er State HIghway tloadod4~; 

2. Whether or not the noticea requAr4d by the 

statute are to be poateil by the 40mdmi.onero~ Court0 

the I)uparinteadent of roads, or the lllkte liighwy Do, 

Qiedon ; 

3. Whether or not the *road offload* to whom 

aotioe in wrltlag lm require6 to be given v%th rempeat 

toaByoolQlaintbyau~~ rmoa to the Qouaty 

Judge,neana the wper%ntenflmt 0r oouaty rouls, the 

@ ta t4 Hig h w~ Co md88lo n, or l o w o ther o ff ia ia l ; 

4 . Whether or not the judgment of the Oounty 

Ju@s ~ut&aidng the ortier contemplatea the order of the 
Uonorablc L. A. Ccc - P'agc 4 

Superintendent of roads, or the order of tllc State 1Nghlway Commission, or the order of the CommLasioners* Court 

where the Commissioners ( Court has acted upon Its own 

mtlon, (if it is authorized by the Act to nnko euch ordor upon its otm motion); 

penallzing60ne 

Whether or not the Article contemplates 

for an act violating a posted notice 

prior to the order of the County Judge werrullng hle 

oomplaint as to suoh order shown by the notloo! 

0. Whether or not an act violatlq the order 

of the Conridssion0ra~ COurt, the Superlnteadent of roads, 

or the State iii&way Covmdseion duly posted, is punishable even in the absence of complaint. 

We think the statute is so indefinitely framxl, 

md Is of such doubtful construction, as to be ineufticlently esplicit to inform those who are subject to it 

what conduct on their part will render them liable to 

Its penalties, and this woms to be the recognized test 

of validity. 

Eportatorlurn, Xnc. vs. State, 116 6. W. 

(2) 483; 

6~ part0 Wilmoth, 67 S. W. (2) 289; 

Brockery vs. Stat*, 247 9. W. 606) 

3x part0 numphrey, 244 s. Iv. 822; 

Grahamvs. iiinos, 240 S. 8. 1016$ 

Grlffinvs. State, 218 S. \Y. 4941 

M. ii. & T. Ry. Co. vs. Stats, 100 S. U'. 

766; 

Auguetine vs. State, 52 8. W. 77; 

Connally vs. Gmoral Conet. Co. (U.S.) 

70 LW Xd. 322; 

12 Tox. Jur. p. 226, 8 17. 
nonorablo B. A. Coo - Pago ti 

No citieen skould be convicted of arime under 

a etatute 80 *antIrig in ~efiaitenees and speolflcness 

an to the acts mm&3 pmal therein.