WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
The offense is violation of an ordinance of the City of Houston which provides that it shall be unlawful to park or stand any vehicle other than a commercial vehicle in any truck loading zone during certain hours. The punishment is a fine of $150.
Appellant and the nature of the offense are the same as in Stecher v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 371 S.W.2d 568; Stecher v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 800; Stecher v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 477, 358 S.W.2d 380. A prior conviction for this same offense was before this Court in Stecher v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 373 S.W.2d 255, in which case this Court reversed and remanded for new trial because the bailiff answered a question asked by the jury.
No witness testified that appellant parked his automobile in the zone in question and the state relies on the presumption created by Section 41-141, 1958 Code of Ordinances of Houston, Ch. 41, XIII, which reads as follows:
The appellant did not testify and offered no evidence.
Appellant's brief complains that the state failed to establish by proper evidence the ownership of the parked vehicle. He argues that the only evidence of ownership offered by the state was that of the policeman testifying to what the appellant "is alleged to have said in another court."
Police Officer Arredondo testified to having seen a regular passenger four door Dodge Sedan with regular license plates RN 300 parked in a truck zone about 9:30 A.M.
He testified that he issued the parking ticket which was introduced in evidence.
Excerpts from the ordinances of the City of Houston and report from the Department of Traffic and Transportation were introduced to establish that the marked zone where the vehicle was parked was a truck zone.
Arredondo testified on direct examination that he knew the appellant; had seen the appellant driving the vehicle previously; had seen no one other than the appellant driving it, and had heard the appellant testify under oath that he owned such vehicle.
On cross-examination the witness Arredondo was asked, and answered:
We find the evidence sufficient to show that the appellant owned the parked vehicle
Other grounds for reversal, some of which are those decided against the appellant in former appeals, present no ground for reversal.
The judgment is affirmed.