People v. Knight

PULLEN, P. J. —

Defendant was convicted of driving a vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (sec. 502, Vehicle Code), and from such conviction, and an order denying a new trial, he prosecutes this appeal.

As grounds therefor, appellant contends the information fails to state a public offense, and that it is uncertain and ambiguous. It is alleged in the information, following the language of the statute, that: “On or about the 10th day of June, 1939, in the County of Mendocino, State of California, said defendant did then and there wilfully and unlawfully drive a vehicle, to-wit, an automobile, upon a highway while he, the said defendant, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”

The first specification of error is that the information does not allege that the act complained of occurred upon a public, as distinguished from a private, highway. There is no force in this objection. The word “highway” is defined in section 81 of the Vehicle Act as, “a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel”. According to Webster’s International Dictionary, a highway is a main road or thoroughfare; hence, a road or way open to the use of the public. In its earlier use a highway designated a principal way traveled by the general public, as distinguished from a byway, or bypath. It is thus apparent that neither in the Vehicle Code (at least since 1935), nor in ordinary usage, is there such a thing as a private highway. Appellant cites us to

In re Worthington,

21 Cal. App. 497 [132 Pac. 82], and

People

v.

Hoenschle,

132 Cal. App. 387 [22 Pac. (2d) 777], but at the time those decisions were written, the statute (see. 112 of the California Vehicle Code) made it unlawful for one under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive a vehicle on any

public

highway within the state. In 1935 the word “public” was omitted from the section, bringing

[474]