Appeal, No. 172, Oct. T., 1959, from judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County, Sept. T., 1958, No. 3, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. John Stanley Curley. Judgment affirmed.
Stephen J. McEwen, Jr., with him Stephen J. McEwen, and McEwen and McEwen, for appellant.
Ralph B. D'Iorio, Assistant District Attorney, with him J. Harold Hughes, First Assistant District Attorney, and Raymond R. Start, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (gunther, J., absent).
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 507]
Defendant was charged with violation of The Vehicle Code, Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 905, § 903, as amended, 75 PS § 453, in operating a tractor-trailer on a route known as the Industrial Highway, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, with a total weight load in excess of that permitted by statute. On summary conviction before a magistrate, defendant's vehicles were
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 508]
found to be 16,760 pounds over weight; and a fine of $1,650 was imposed. Defendant appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County. The court heard the case de novo, found defendant guilty, and sentenced him to pay a fine of $1,650 and costs. Defendant appealed to this Court.
Defendant admits the tractor-trailer driven by him was 16,760 pounds over the weights permitted in section 903 of The Vehicle Code, 75 PS § 453. His defense, however, was that he had secured a "Special Hauling Permit" from the Department of Highways under section 905 of The Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 PS § 455. It is undisputed on the record that at the time of the arrest defendant was operating a Mack tractor bearing license No. 3360 and a Brunswick trailer with license No. 9696 GA. The special hauling permit which defendant secured from the Pennsylvania Department of Highways, as issued, covered a tractor bearing license No. 3355 MD, and a semi-trailer with license No. 9697 GA, both registered in the State of Maryland.
Defendant admitted, and it is not controverted, that the license numbers of the tractor and semi-trailer he was driving at the time of the arrest did not correspond to those designated in the permit. However, defendant attempted to show that the vehicles driven were practically identical in size and weight with those named in the permit. The court received this evidence over the Commonwealth's objection. It further appeared that the route defendant was driving was not that authorized in the permit. However, the court below, in finding defendant guilty, did not rely on the fact that defendant drove an unauthorized route.
The court found that defendant was operating vehicles not covered by the special permit and therefore could not rely on ...