Case Name: Ex parte WILLIAMS
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1935-01-16
Citations: 79 S.W.2d 325
Docket Number: No. 17411
Parties: Ex parte WILLIAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 79
Pages: 325–327

Head Matter:
Ex parte WILLIAMS.
No. 17411.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 16, 1935.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1935.
See, also, 76 S.W.(2d) 137.
Del W. Harrington, C. W. Smith, and J. M. Denver, all of El Paso, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, Judge. '
In a habeas corpus proceeding the judge of the El Paso county court at law remanded appellant to custody. Hence this appeal.
Appellant was convicted in the corporation court of the city of El Paso for a violation of subdivision (A), art. 801, P. C. 1-Ie appealed to the county court, where he was again convicted, and a fine of less than §100 assessed against him. He contends that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional, in that it is too indefinite and uncertain to meet the requirements of the Constitution and of article 6, P. C. We quote article 6, as follows: "Whenever it appears that a provision of the penal law is so indefinitely framed or of such doubtful construction that it can not be understood, either from the language in which it is expressed, or from some other written law of the State, such penal law shall be regarded as wholly inoperative."
Subdivision (A), art. 891, P. C., reads as follows: "The driver or operator of any vehicle in or upon any public highway where-ever practicable shall travel upon the right hand side of such highway. Two vehicles which are passing each other in opposite directions shall have the right of way, and no other vehicle to the rear of either of such two vehicles shall pass or attempt to pass such two vehicles. On all occasions the driver or operator of any vehicle upon any public highway shall travel upon the right hand side of such highway unless the road on the left hand side of such highway is clear and unobstructed for a distance of at least fifty yards ahead." (Italics ours.)
The complaint was drawn under that portion of the statute we have italicized. It appears to be appellant's contention, that the use of the word "practicable" in the first part of the statute renders the statute indefinite, in that such term furnishes no guide for determining when the driver of a vehicle is required to drive upon the right-hand side of the highway. We doubt if such provision should be held to be indefinite, but think that part of the statute under which appellant was convicted clearly makes it an offense to travel on the left-hand side of the highway 'unless the road on such left-hand side is clear and unobstructed for a distance of at least 50 yards ahead. It might be added that the word "practicable" is defined in the dictionary, among other things, to mean "usable; passable." Article 8, P. C., reads as follows: "Words' which have their meaning specially defined shall be understood in that sense, though it be contrary to their usual meaning; and all words used in this Code, except where a word, term or phrase is specially defined, are to be taken and construed in the sense in which they are understood in common language, taking into consideration the context and subject matter relative to which they are employed."
If we substitute for the word "practicable" the above definition, the statute would read; "The driver or operator of any vehicle in or upon any public highway wherever usable or passable shall travel upon the right hand side of such highway." In view of the definition mentioned, it is not clear that the first part of the statute is indefinite. However, it is unnecessary to decide the question, in view of our conclusion that that'part of the statute under which appellant was conyicted sufficiently defines an offense.
Abbott v. Andrews (Tex. Com. App.) 45 S. W.(2d) 568, and the other authorities cited by appellant, are not deemed to militate against the conclusion we have reached.
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.