mqtion to quash upon any proper ground erasmade, but, 8s etatedby the A8sirtantAttorney General,there Is no provirionof law in this &ate under which 8 firm or corporationten be indictedor tried under the cris!lnal lawr, 86 menu tdhare been the effort here. Hea. R. Q. Waterr, pago 4 (0-m) Eon. Il. 0. Watorr, page 5 (04307)
The motor companyand its ~loyeor are agent*, so you stata, within the deflnltfoaof Article 566, and they ham ao llceqrer,there- fore they are mbject to prorecutlolr t@er Article 572.
AE regarda Article 572;& point out that it would bc diffl- cu&t to prove that colapanrtlop1s balng racelw4 fo rth elrvicra ran- derkld. & order for the employeea of the motor companyto be held guilty for rollcltlnglqrurtmce tithont a lieeuro,rnder this Mlcle, It would be necereary that compenratlonwe recolred for euch rollciting. However, it lr our opinion that the prorlrlon, "for ~lreat or indirect conpeneation,* ar wed in Article 572, only relater to roliclting inmranor. In other wordr, it in our oplhlohthat, under thlr rtatyte, anyam who "tranrgltr for .aperron other thah hlmaelf,an applicationfor a policy of fnrurance to or eom such conpany ... without a certificateof authorityto act 4s agent or solicitorfor ruch company,"or anyone *a0 "amume4 to act dn negotiationof insurancewithout a certificateof authorityto act as agentor sollcltorfor such company,"lr rubjeet to prosecutionunder Article 572, supra,regardleraof whether he did or did not so act "far irect or indlmct compematlon." It lr our aplnlenthat thlr conclu8lon 4s correctunder the rulea of statutoryconstructlonjhowever,by virtue of the decisionin the case of Jones vs. State, (Ct. Crlm. App., 19231, 265 S. W. 577, it is not neceesaryto rest our opinionon construction.
In that case, prosecutionwas based upon Section49, Chapter 1138,Acts, Thirty-firstLegislature,which 1s substantially the sane as Article 572, supra. The only dffference lathe Act6 am: iirrt, the words "of any kind and character" were ealttea $n Sectloa 49, Chapter 108, Actr, Thirty-flrmtLeglrlatum; ~ecomlly,the flnr Jmw ken c@gad from "not lerrt~ oue hundreddollarr"to "not nom than one hundreddollarr." The lnformatlonin this case, 88 1s shown oa pags 3 of ths tranecrik$, mtated ln part that the defendant"did then and there u@awfully for di- rect and~indirectcompensationsolicitinrrurance la belralfof Protective Life InsuranceCompany,a@ did then and them tmsnlt for a person other than himself,to wit, for Sam Kruger,an applicationfor a policy of in- suranceto said ProtectiveLife Inmrance Compmy, and did then and there assume to act in negotiationof insurancewithout a certificateef 4uthority to act as agent and solicitorfor said ProtectiveLife InsuranceConp4nyj said ProtectiveLife InsuranceCompanythen and there being aa inEUI'B~C0 kompanyagainstthe peace and dignityof the State."
The defenvt requestedthe followingcharge,as is shown on page 8 of the transuript:
"You 4re chargedat the requestof the defendantthat before you can find the defendantguilty ia this case you must find and believe from the evidencebeyond a reasonable doubt that said Xmmet A. Jones, the defend& herein, re- ceived directlyor indirectlyeompensstion for such appli- cation of the insurancepolicy." Hon. R. 0. vaterr, page 6 (0-407)
The lower courtr&pad thlr charge. The defendmt arrlgaed euch refuralaa error. In