Summary
In Hall v. State, 102 Tex. Crim. 329, we said that one carrying a pistol to a town thirty or thirty-five miles away was not, as a matter of law, a traveler — and the court having submitted that issue to the jury, we would not disturb their adverse finding.
Summary of this case from Hancock v. StateOpinion
No. 9467.
Delivered December 11, 1925.
1. — Carrying a Pistol — Evidence — Held Sufficient.
Where, on a trial for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the evidence established that appellant carried a pistol in an automobile from one town to a point thirty or thirty-five miles distant, he was not as a matter of law a traveler. Appellant having the pistol in the car, was sufficient to make same a violation of the law. Following George v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. 179 and Mayfield v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. Rep..
2. — Same — Charge of Court — In Misdemeanor Cases — Practice.
In the trial of misdemeanor cases the rule is well settled that an exception to the charge of the court as given is not sufficient unless a special charge covering the objection to the main charge is requested. See collation of authorities in Vernon's Ann. P. C., page 499.
Appeal from the County Court of McLennan County. Tried below before the Hon. Jas. R. Jenkins, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol, penalty a fine of $100.
The opinion states the case.
W. V. Dunnam, McConnell Douglass, and John Hatter, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State's Attorney, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court of McLennan County for unlawfully carrying a pistol, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100.
This court has held that one going in an automobile from one town to a point thirty or thirty-five miles distant was not a traveler as a matter of law. George v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. 179. The trial court submitted to the jury in general terms the question as to whether appellant was a traveler and instructed them if they so found to acquit him, and the jury's verdict was adverse to the proposition. This being a misdemeanor case, and no special charge being asked seeking to have appellant's view of the law presented to the jury, we have always held an exception to the charge as given in a misdemeanor case to be not sufficient. See authorities collated in Vernon's Annotated C. C. P., p. 499.
Appellant having the pistol in the car was sufficient to make same a violation of the law. Mayfield v. State, 75 Tex. Crim. 103. We observe in addition to this that there was testimony before the jury that appellant drew the pistol on a man named Dean.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.