*1 346 himself
employee club, arm of the had advised him to who against impending by attack and associates. an Williams
Dora testified to the same effect. argument question by presented
The and in oral sole brief person legality appellant’s in the is the of the search of the night State, Cr. upon 111 Texas club. Reliance is had v. Nelson 425, case, Rep. was careful 14 2d 847. In that the court S.W. prior to pistol by to note “that the could not seen the officers be controlling officer his the arrest.” Nelson is not here because pistol pro- testified in this case that see the a he could of butt truding got upon appellant’s out of the auto- the waist as he mobile. and,
Finding support the the evidence to conviction sufficient appearing, judgment no reversible error is affirmed. the Elroy Jr. v. White State 28,822. January 23, No. 1957. Rehearing Motion State’s for Overruled February 27, 1957. Faulkner,
James E. Coldspring, appellant. for Atkins, Attorney, Robert F. County Coldspring, and Leon Douglas, Attorney, Austin, State’s for the state.
BELCHER, Judge.
Appellant upon alleging was convicted an information that he unlawfully operate upon “did then and there a motor vehicle public a highway, wit, Highway 190, to in a United States No. punishment reckless manner.” The at a was assessed fine of $25.
347 charge attempted an of- appears here the state to It that 6701d, Ann. Civ. Stat. fense under 51 of Art. Vernon’s Sec. *2 Pena, Rep. 560, parte In Ex De La 157 Texas Cr. 251 S.W. P.C., 890, 827a, Ann. 2d we 8 of Art. Vernon’s said: “Said Sec. legislature expression this appears by the of to the latest be high- touching regulation upon public the state the of traffic ways, repeal, of Art. supersedes, and said 51 if it does not Sec. 6701d, R.C.S.” charge under pleading an offense
The state’s herein 827a, not does P.C., it provisions nor does the charge of Art. Ann. Vernon’s 6701d, Ann. an offense under 51 Art. Vernon’s Sec. of Civ. Stat. judgment prosecution
The is and is ordered reversed the dismissed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING Judge. WOODLEY, finding judgment
The state calls attention to the in the that appellant years age, says prosecution is sixteen of and that the is under Art. 802d V.A.P.C. charging part origi- quoted
The of the information in is the opinion charge nal and is deemed insufficient to an under offense Art. 802d V.A.P.C. rehearing
The state’s motion for is overruled. Lee Junior Williams v. State 28,544. 21, No. November 1956. Appellant’s Rehearing Motion for Overruled January 30, 1957. Appellant’s Rehearing Second Motion for Overruled (Without 27, Opinion) February Written 1957.