Case ID: pr_24/html/0223-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me. Justice Wolf", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Escanella, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Humacao in a Prosecution for Carrying Arms.
    No. 1038.
    Decided June 24, 1916.
    Carrying Arms — License.—A judgment of conviction for carrying arms "will not be reversed on a plea that the defendant was duly licensed to do so if the license is not eopied into the statement of the ease, nor when the evidence fails to show any reason for carrying the weapon beyond the jurisdiction. covered by the license, and especially when carried about the person in a court.
    Tlie facts are stated in tlie opinion.
    
      Messrs. Carlos B. Buitrago and Antonio L. López for tlie appellant.
    
      Mr. Salvador Mestre, fiscal, for tlie appellee.
   Me. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defense in this case was that the defendant was duly authorized to hear a weapon. The alleged license, although introduced in evidence in the court below, was not included in the statement of the case and; therefore, we are in no position to reverse the judgment. The theory of the defendant was that he had a license to bear a weapon while going from his house to his farm, but the proof failed to satisfy the court below that he had any reason to take the weapon to (7aguas wi tli him and especially to take it into court, at which place a policeman found it on his person and took it away from him.

The judgment must be

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.