
    (86 Tex. Cr. R. 264)
    AXTELL v. STATE.
    (No. 5582.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 26, 1919.)
    Licenses <§=542(2) — Operation of motos vehicle WITHOUT piSPLAY OF LICENSE.
    In a prosecution under Acts 35th Leg. c. 207, as amended, against the president and genéral manager of a corporation, based on the operation by the corporation of a motor car on which the seal assigned by the highway department was not displayed, it is a defense that defendant procured a seal for such car, as he did for all the others, and gave orders for its attachment, which orders were not carried out through a change in the personnel of the corporation’s servants, and that defendant was ignorant that the car was operated without seal.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court; Hugh’ L. Small, Judge.
    F. W. Axtell, was convicted of violating Acts 35th Leg. c. 207, as amended, by operating a motor vehicle without having displayed on the front end the seal for the current year assigned by the Highway 'Department,, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    C. R. Bowlin, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for 'the State.
   MORROW, J.

The statute under which the prosecution was established provides:

“No person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state unless such vehicle shall have at all times conspicuously displayed on the front end thereof the seal for the current year assigned to said motor vehicle by the highway department.” Acts 35th Leg. c. 207, amended by same Legislature, 1st Called Session, c. 31, and of 3d Called Session, c. 13 (Pen. Code Supp. 1918, arts. 820yy, 820z). 1 •

The evidence in the case is, not controverted. Appellant is president and general manager of a corporation in the conduct of whose business 16 automobiles were used. The business of the corporation was supervised in the main by the son of appellant, and the conduct of the automobiles was in charge of a foreman. It was shown that one of these cars was driven by one of the em-ployés of the company upon the highway without a seal, and an arrest resulted. It was also shown that the appellant’s son, in pursuance of his management of the business, had obtained a license and seals for 16 cars, including the car in question; that the son undertook to see to having the seals attached to the cars, and he gave directions to his employes to attach them, and they were attached at the time to all of the automobiles except one, which at that time was out on a trip somewhere in the country; that the foreman to whom was committed the service left the employ of the company, and neither the appellant nor his son was aware of the fact that the order to have the seal placed upon the car in question had not been complied with until the time of the arrest.

The appellant requested an 'instruction to the effect that the payment of the tax and securing of the seal with the intent on the part of the appellant to attach it to the car in connection with his orders to the employs to do so would constitute a defense to the prosecution, provided the seal was not left unattached with the knowledge of the appellant, but that its absence was due to accident or mistake. We think that these facts would constitute a defense, and that the jury should have been so instructed. The absence of the seal from the car would be prima facie proof of the guilt of the person operating the car, but we believe he should not be held guilty of a criminal offense where he was able to show he had paid the tax and obtained the seal, and exercised all reasonable means and care to have it attached to the car, and that the operation of the car without it was contrary to his intent and without his knowledge.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <©=jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     