Stewart

The defendant was convicted on a charge of driving an automobile forty miles per hour in a twenty-mile zone, and appeals from the judgment. The complaint, which was-in substantially the language just used in stating it, is inartificially drawn, but no point is made on this appeal in regard to it, and we proceed on the assumption that it is sufficient.

All of the points specified as grounds of appeal resolve themselves into the contention that the trial court did not follow the provisions of section 155 of the California Vehicle Act, as amended in 1929, and for that reason it had no jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction. The respondent has also raised the question whether this section of the act is constitutional. But in view of the conclusion to which we have come as to its interpretation, we do not deem it necessary for the purposes of this case to express any opinion on the constitutional question.

Section 155, after defining and prohibiting speed traps, provides:

This case requires an interpretation of this section only as it relates to the use of an automobile by officers, and the questions arising are whether the provisions in regard thereto apply to all officers…