
    HUBBARD v. STATE.
    (No. 11453.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 28, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;I092(7), 1099(6) — Where motion for new trial was overruled and court adjourned June 4, statement of facts and bills of exception filed September 6 are not entitled to consideration (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760).
    Where defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled and court adjourned June 4,1927, statement of facts and bills of exception not filed until September 6 were not timely filed and not entitled to consideration, and will be stricken on motion of state under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760.
    2. Indictment and information &wkey;»i 10(3) — Information for violating loan brokers law fol- . lowing language of statute is sufficient (Pen. Code 1925, arts. 1127, 1129; Rev. St. 1925, arts. 6162, 6/63).
    In prosecution for violating loan brokers law as defined by Pen. Code 1925, arts. 1127, 1129, and Rev. St. 1925, arts. 6162, 6163, information following language of statute is sufficient, especially in absence of any exception.
    3. Pawnbrokers and money lenders <&wkey;l — Legislature may regulate business of loan broker.
    Business of loan broker is one within power of Legislature to regulate.
    4. Pawnbrokers and moneylenders <&wkey;2 — Renal provisions of loan brokers law held valid (Pen. Code 1925, arts. 1127, 1129; Rev. St. 1925, arts. 6162, 6163).
    Legislature did not exceed its constitutional power in attempting in Pen. Code 1925, arts. 1127, 1129, and Rev. St. 1925, arts. 6162, 6163, to prevent by penal laws the weak and helpless from becoming prey of loan brokers.
    
      5. Constitutional law <⅜=>46(1) — Where information for violating loan brokers law alleged ' failure to give borrov/er ticket, reviewing court is- not required to pass on validity of provision requiring keeping of book (Rev. St. 1925, art. 6163).
    ■ Where information for violating loan brokers law alleged defendant’s failure to give borrower ticket under Rev. St. 1925, art. 6163, it is not necessary for reviewing court to determine validity of provision requiring loan broker to keep well-bound book in which he shall register transactions and which shall be kept open for inspection, since violation of clause as charged could arise independent of clause as to keeping book.
    6. Criminal law <&wkey;1207— In prosecution for violating loan brokers law, statute not effective until after conviction cannot affect penalty (Pen. Code 1925, art. 13).
    In prosecution for violating loan brokers law, Acts 40th Leg., 1st Called Sess. (1927), c. 17, redefining offense, which did not become effective until two days after trial and conviction of defendant, can have no effect on penalty, and Pen. Code 1925, art. 13, has no application.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Harris County Court at Law No. 2; Ray Scruggs, Judge.
    W. M. Hubbard was convicted of violating the loan brokers law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hunt, Teagle & Moseley and Earle Adams. Jr., all of Houston, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MARTIN, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the loan brokers law as defined in articles 1127 and 1129 of the Penal Code 1925, and articles 6162 and 6163, R. C. S. 1925; punishment, a fine of $150.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled, and court adjourned on June 4, 1927. The statement of facts and all of appellant’s bills of exception were not filed until September 6, 1927. As neither were timely filed, they are not entitled to consideration and are stricken upon motion of the state. Article 760, C. C. P. 1925; Miller v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 267 S. W. 487; Parker v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 81, 200 S. W. 1083; Mireles v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 396, 266 S. W. 418.

Most of the questions raised on this appeal by this action pass out of the case. A brief has been, filed suggesting that the law is unconstitutional and that the complaint and information are 'insufficient to charge any- offense. The information follows .the language of the statute and is in our opinion sufficient, 'especially in the absence of any exception to 'same. One of the objections stressed in "the brief is that the information fails to charge any employment by the parties named as having made the assignment of their wages, and fails also to expressly aver that either had any- wages due them. The information sets out in hsec verba the written assignment of the wages in question, and this instrument on its face shows that the assignors had wages and salaries due or to come due for the months of December and January, 1927, from the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company. The information expressly avers that appellant took this as security for the payment of a loan and the interest thereon as an assignment of the wages Of the assignors. The information in its entirety fully meets the objections made by appellant in his brief.

The constitutionality of the law is questioned. In the case of Juhan v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 63, 216 S. W. 873, this court said:

“We have no doubt that the business of the appellant is one whose regulation is within the police power of the state, and that reasonable restriction thereof may be provided by the Legislature.”

This same view was reaffirmed in the recent case of Brand v. State, No. 10669 (Tex. Cr. App.) 3 S. W. (2d) 439, motion for rehearing overruled March 7, 1928, not yet officially reported.

We reiterate the opinion that the business of a loan broker is one within the power of the Legislature to regulate, and that it did not exceed its constitutional power in attempting, as was its apparent intention, to prevent by penal laws the weak and helpless from becoming the prey of modern Shylocks.

It is insisted that that part of article 6163, Revised Statutes 1925, which provides in substance that each loan broker shall keep a well-bound book in which he shall register all his transactions, etc., which shall be kept open for inspection, is unreasonable and indefinite in that it does not provide who shall have the right of inspection' or provide any regulation or restriction for such inspection. While we are not inclined to agree with the contention of appellant, the question is not necessary to a decision of this case, as we find that the information in the instant case contains the averment that the appellant did not then and there give to the borrower a ticket showing the amount of cash actually received, and did not then and there give such borrower any ticket showing the amount of money'to be paid back by the borrower, etc. We think that a violation of this particular clause of the statute, which is a part of said article 6163, could arise independent of the said 'clause under attack; and since the verdict can be made to apply to this latter allegation, it is not necessary to specifically pass bn the point raised -by appellant.

Another suggestion is made in the brief that the penalty could be less under the acts of the Special Session of the Fortieth Legislature (chapter 17), which redefined the offense in question. This law, -under the acts of the Fortieth Legislature, did not become effective until June 6,1927, two days after the. trial and conviction of appellant; hence article 13 of the Penal Code invoked by appellant has no application.

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. 
      <gx?For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      <®^»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and'Indexes
     