OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Robert F. Poden, Jr.
GOWity AttOXnsy
Matae;orda County
3ay city, Tsxaa
Dear SLr:
r YOU i6tt0r or
0r tbiu department
T said foaQts.w
la or vwmn*8 Annotated
ding aeven thouaand (VOW)
uoh vehiolo or train or oom-
welght than 8i.x hundred (600) pounds PSP
lnoh width of tire upon any whoa1 aonomitrated
upon the eurr800 Of the yehlmq shedi be op-
erated on the public hi.~ ways outside of the
gononbla Rotart F. Pedan, Jr., Faga 2
llmite of en incorporated city or town; pro-
vfded, however, that the provisiona ct this
section shall not become affective until the
Cl.lz; day of Janusry, 1932.w (Undarraortng
9
The terms *blghway” and “public hi&hway” have bean
defined by &atuta a8 follows:
wTh8 tam0 ‘hl&hrey* aa ured la thle Act
shall iaalude any publia road or thoroughfare
or rectioa thereof ana any bridge, oulvart or
other aeceesary structure appertaining thereto.”
(Aots 1925, 30th Lee., oh. 188, p. 456, Art.
6674a. V.A.C.S.)
“‘Fublia Highway’ shall inolude any road,
street, way, thoroughfare or bridge in this
State not privately owrmd or controlled for
the use of vahl.cles over which the State has
leglelatl~e jurlsdlotlonunder ite polloe
power.- (Act8 1929, 41 Leg., 2nd C.S., p. 1713,
oh. 88, 880. 1, es emended Aatr 1930, 4lat Leg.,
5th C.S., p. 151, oh. 23, sso. 1, xrt. 5575a-1,
V.A.C.S.)
our courtu have derinad these terms in the 8arm man-
aer. Railwsy 00. v. MontgomarJ, 83 Tax. 54, 19 8. w’. 1013i
City of Dublin v. Barret (C.C.A.) 242 6. w. 535; and a woounty
road* is a -public hlgbway:~ 21 Tex. Jur. 528-330.
It remains for us to determine who has the authority,
or, more aocurately, duty, to weigh VahiCleu to datarmlae whath-
or there ia a compliance with Sootion 5 ot Article B27a of VaP-
non’s Annotated Penal Code. ~~~ahave aaraiully examined the pro-
visions or Title 93 or Chapter 6 or the Rsvised civil Statute,
aad Al'tiOl4U l047, et B4q. of the Penal Coda relating to Tub-
l$o welgharsw and oan discover no such authority given those
Individuals. As far as v;e oan determine the Statute8 relating
to public wetgharr attempt tc do no more then regulate the
busina60 or those angaging fn thst cccup4tloa for hire. Xa-
deed, saotlon 6 of Artiola 827a, Vernon's Annotated Fanal Code
s~a~lfically enjoin6 upon licenee and watght inspaotora of the
State mghwsy Department the duty to determine acmplianaa with
the load limit Zen in the f’ollowing languagar
L
Roamable Robert 1. Potion, Jr., Pago s
“SOO. 6. Any llaonae and wolght lnepeotor
of the State Blghway Uepartmmt, hating reaeon
to believe that the gross weight of a loaded
vehicle ie uulawfUl, 1s aut&orized to tilghthe
same either by mean8 of portable or statioaary
males, and to require that 'auoh rehiole be
&riven to the ararettt roalee in the event euoh
lsoalee are within two mller. The llupeotar.mw
then require thd driver or operetor to unload
Wtuedletelg suoh portion OS the load ao mey be
nsoeseary to bsorease the groaa weight of suoh
vehiole to the maxlmum grorr weight 8proltled
by thlr Act."
Conatrolng thla rtatute, this depertmeat hold la
Opinion No. O-1454 that onl euoh llooa~r aad weight lnrpmotorr
or the State Righway DePar 74 ant have authority to walgh veblolee
to determine rhetber or not them ia an unlawful load, and an-
thorlty to require those dthia two rller of eoales to drive
to them. we hold that ordlnuy pee00 offlour have no akoh au-
thorlty. A:?OOQr Of thi8 opinion i8 enoloaed herewith.
For the fmac~na given in Opinion t?o.O-1454 aad under.
tbm authorities there olted It lo our opinion and pa ara ad-
vised that a oertifled pub& wolgher has no authority to wei@
vehlolea apon the piblio oountp roadr of Wtagorda Oounty to
deteraiae whethor there i8 a~oompZ%anco with Seotion 5 of Ar-
tlole 8270 of Vernon*a Anaotatod Penal Oodo, unle~r nquerted
to do 60 by the driver or'owner of the vehlole.
”
A IeNTl-
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Areietant