### 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 

### actdngupon 

### their owm amfiou, or through the 8uperintexlent.,

### where one is employed, or the 

### State JllghwayCow 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.nmeuoh use is -bited an%.shall be poeted upon the 

### highwayla such places as rill euable the drivers to make detours to ayoti the restricted hlgbvaJs or pol'tlouethereof.
*If the owner or operator of any moh vehi010 feels himself ag@%eyed by such aatloa, he ms;lcomplain 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 clayami purpose of auah hearlag, and at suoh hearing the Count Judge shall hoar teotlmuy offered 

### by the part1es respeotiyely, md upon ooncluelon thereof shall render 5uUgmnt euetainiug, reyoU.ug or podiipinc; suoh order theretofore nmde by the Couut && n------5 guueriutendent, ati the jtigmnt 0. 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 

### beenoomdtted by the ooaplalnant daoe positingsuoh 

### nOtdOe@, he shall be subject to the same peualtp horeinafter preylded for suoh Qff0n80 as if same hod been Ootitt& eubeequent t0 th0 rOrrdit%onofHonorable B. A. Coe - Page 3



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

### ~wlp8lrint~torakte~w~Co~~on, afterit ha8 been so approved W nuoh judgment 

### of theOountyJudge mhall be finebnot~oeeding ho iluadredDollara.'



### Theatestodby thisgeneraletatut4ry rule uf 

### tallAity,8e think Arti.ole634 is wholly InoperrtAve, **be oauw**  **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~ 

### Courteither 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 theat&o tU*way Gowclwlon at the opM.on of muoh 3uperintemleat er State HIghway tloadod4~;

2. 

### Whetheror not the noticea 

### requAr4dby the statute are 

### tobe poateil by the 40mdmi.onero~Court0 the I)uparinteadentof roads, or the lllkteliighwy Do, Qiedon ; 3. Whether or not the *road offload* to whom aotioe 

### in wrltlag 

### lmrequire6 to be given v%th 

### rempeat toaByoolQlaintbyau~~ rmoa 

### to theQouaty 

### Judge,neana thewper%ntenflmt 0r 

### oouatyrouls, the
@tat4 Hig hw~ Comd88lon, or low otheroff iaial; 4. Whether or not the judgment of the Oounty Ju@s ~ut&aidng the ortiercontemplatea the order of the

### UonorablcL. A. Ccc - P'agc 4

Superintendentof roads, or the order of 

### tllc State 1Nghlway Commission, or the order of the CommLasioners*Court where the Commissioners( Courthas acted upon Its own mtlon, (ifit is authorizedby theAct to 

### nnko euch ordor 

### upon its otm motion);
penallzing60ne

Whether or not theArticle contemplates for an act violating a postednotice prior to 

### the order of the County Judge werrullng hle oomplaint as to suoh order 

### shownby the notloo!

0. Whether or not an actviolatlq the order of the Conridssion0ra~ COurt, the Superlnteadentof roads, or the State iii&way Covmdseionduly posted, is punishable even in the absenceof complaint.

We 

### think the statute is so indefinitely framxl, md Is of suchdoubtful construction,as tobe ineufti

### clently esplicit to inform thosewho are subject to it what conduct on theirpartwill render them liable to Its penalties,and thiswoms tobe therecognized 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; 

### Auguetinevs. State, 52 8. W. 77; Connallyvs. 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 *antIrigin ~efiaitenees and speolflcness an to the acts mm&3 pmal therein.