Case ID: del_29/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Conrad, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State vs. George U. Sockum.
    Weapons—Concealed Weapons—Defenses.
    In a prosecution for carrying concealed a revolver, a deadly weapon, the burden of showing a license to carry the same under, Rev. Code 1915, §262, is upon accused, and the state need not, to secure a conviction, prove the contrary.
    
      (February 7, 1917.)
    
      Conrad, J., sitting.
    
      David J. Reinhardt, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Layton, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
    
      John M. Richardson and Frank M. Jones for the accused.
    Court of General Sessions, Sussex County,
    February Term, 1917.
    Indictment No. 5,
    February Term, 1917.
    George U. Sockum was indicted for unlawfully carrying concealed a deadly weapon, etc. Not guilty.
    George U. Sockum was indicted for unlawfully carrying “concealed a deadly weapon upon or about his person other than an ordinary pocket knife, namely, a certain firearm, commonly called a revolver, he * * * then and there, not being a policeman or other peace officer,” etc. The state proved that at the time and place laid in the indictment, the accused, after having a wordy altercation with the prosecuting witness, went to his overcoat lying on a timber wagon, and took therefrom a revolver and placed it in his hip pocket, placing his hand over it. That he thereupon “dared any one of the three of us to do anything to him.”
    When the state rested, counsel for accused moved that the eourt instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty because it had neither been alleged nor proved that the accused had no license to carry concealed a deadly weapon. Rev. Code 1915, §262.
    The state contended that if accused had a license, it was peculiarly within his knowledge, and was a matter of defense.
   Conrad, J.

The court does not agree with the contention made by counsel for the accused, and declines to give binding instructions.

After the usual charge in such cases,

Verdict, not guilty.