Full opinion text
HAWKINS, Judge. It was charged against appellant that as owner he operated a commercial -motor vehicle on highway No. 35, and that said vehicle carried a load in excess of 7,000 pounds. Upon conviction, appellant was assessed a fine of $10. A jury was waived, and appellant was tried before the county judge of Nacogdoches county upon an agreed statement of facts which is brought forward. The law which appellant is claimed to have transgressed is section 5, c. 282, Acts 42d Leg. (Vernon’s Ann. Tex. P. C. art. 827a, § 5). The law will be found copied in the opinion in Holyfield v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 63 S.W.(2d) 386, and it is not thought' necessary to again set it out here. We have not been favored with a brief from appellant; hence are not advised of his exact contention. The statement of facts shows that appellant was hauling sawlogs from the point of origin along highway No. 35 to his sawmill in Nacogdoches. It appears to have been the state’s contention that the station of Appleby on the H. E. & W. T. Railroad was a practicable common carrier receiving point and nearer to the point of origin than the destination point, and therefore the exemption of the overload found in section 5, Acts 41st Leg. (1929) 2nd Called Sess., c. 42, as amended by Acts 42d Leg. (1931) c. 282, § 7 (Vernon’s Ann. Tex. P. C. art. 827a, § 5 (b), had no application under the facts of the present ease. It was apparently appellant’s contention that, because it would cost more to haul from the point of origin to Appleby, there unload, reload, and ship by rail to point of destination than to haul directly from origin to destination, he was not amenable to the law forbidding the overloading of his motor vehicle. As we understand the facts, the case of Holyfield v. State, supra, is directly in point, and sustains the present conviction. The judgment is affirmed.