Peet

less driving. The only witness for the People was an officer who testified that while patrolling a boulevard in the county he noticed the defendant driving between forty-five and fifty miles per hour down the boulevard, by other automobiles and across street intersections. We are not impressed by the strength of the evidence in the case, but find it sufficient to uphold the judgment. The only question in the case arises out of rulings on the evidence.

The defendant by way of cross-examination asked the officer the following questions: “Por what .purpose were you patrolling the highway?” “Were you attired in the uniform usually worn by traffic officers?” “What was the color of the car yon were driving?” Objections were made and sustained to these questions and they remained unanswered.

It must be conceded that the ruling on these objections does not constitute reversible error, unless it is made so by section 155 of the California Vehicle Act. The pertinent provisions of that section, as amended in 1929, are as follows:

It is apparent that our question, then, is this: Was the charge of reckless driving one “involving the speed of a vehicle”, as those words are used in section…