The age-herald., 1902-03-30
Judge Feagin Says a Clear Case Was Made Out
 Against Them
MUST BE CARRIED ON
 SHOULDER OR IN HAND
Mayor Drennen Remits Fines Because Weapons Were Not Concealed, Although Ordinance Was Not
 Strictly Compiled With.

Something seems to be wrong with the city ordinance against carrying concealed weapons. Men are convicted in the Police Court and fined and the fines are some times remtted by the Mayor or the ground that the persons convicted did not carry concealed weapons.
 The following is taken from the Age Herald of last Friday:
 "G. Wilson and J. c. McGinnis were fined s1OO each by Judge Feagin yesterday morning on charges of carrying conceal ed weapons. The fines were remitted by the Mayor.
 "The two men were arrested yesterday morning about 9 o'clock on the corner of Avenue A and Twentieth street, South. Some one had been firing a pistol in the neighborhood. The police arrested sev- eral persons and searched them. Weapons were found on the two men named.'' MADE OUT CLEAR CASE.
 Judge N. B, Feagin was asked why the two men had been convicted.
 Because the evidence produced before me made out a clear case of violating the statute" said the judge. 'The defendants stated, one, that his pistol was partly pro- truding from his coat pocket and the other that his pistol was stuck In his belt and was visible. Still this violated the city ordinance which requires that the weapon must be carried openly in the hand or upon the shoulder, and under It's provisions had to impose the fne."
 Following Is the city ordinance on the subject
 Section 6O2-Carrying arms. Any person who carries about his person a bowie knife, or any other knife of like kind or description, or razor, or a pistol or fire arms of any other kind or description. or air gun, slung shot, brass knuckles, or other dealy or dangerous weapon, except where the same Is carried openly in the hand or upon the shoulder and in such a manner as not to endanger the public, must. on conviction. be fined not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars. STATE LAW ON SUBJECT.
 The State law on this subject is simi- ~N~N'OfA ment for carrying concealed weapons, a fine of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars but provides that 'the defendant may give evidence that, at the time of carrying the weapon con- cealed, he had good reason to appre- bend an attack, which the jury may con- sider in mitigation of the punishment, or justification of the offense
 As the punishment for practically the same offense was different under the state and city laws and as a prosecution un- der one law barred a prosecution under the other. Judge s. F. Greene of the Grim inal Court and Judge Feagin of the Po- lice Court agreed to make the punishment the same and fixed It at s1O0. In the Criminal Court the lowest punishment was fine of $50. The solicitors fee of $30 and costs amounting to $2O on an aver age amounted to $100. This amount was chosen as the fine for carrying concealed weapons whether the case came up in either court.
 MAYORS EXPLANATION.
 Mayor Drennen was asked why he had remitted the fines in the foregoing cases. He said:
 Tt was reported to me by the arresting officer that he heard a number of shots in the vicinity of Twentieth street and avenue B. Thinking that one of these defendants had fired the shots he ar rested both men. Statements made to me by these men, corroborated by the police officer making the arrests who came with them from the Inferior Criminal Court, were that neither of their pistols were concealed, but that Judge Feag1n ruled that under the provisions of the city, or dinance he would have to fine them be- cause the weapons were not in their hands or on their shoulders.
 'The arresting officer further stated that he examined the men, and their pis- tols had not been fired. The inference was that the officer being allowed to come here with the men and corroborating their statement that this fine was an imposition. but under the city ordinance Judge Feagin felt that he had to im- pose it."
 It should be stated in this connection that under tho law as it now stands a person arrested on any charge, if a con- cealed weapon Is found on him at the time of his arrest he will be fined for vio- lating the city statute on this subject. Formerly this could not be done but it is now legal, or held to be so by a recent de- cision of the Supreme court. In all cases the fine will be s10o. as this amount was agreed on about a year ago and has been adhered to ever since. The object of the city statute requiring a weapon to be carried in the hand or on the shoulder Is that every one will see it, including a would-be thug or hlghwayman who. see- ing his intended victim armed, will, in all probability. not make the attack. HAS CREATED COMMENT.
 Some papers throughout the State have commented on the recent shooting scrapes on the streets of Birmingham, and their opinion of the matter was that the officials did not do their duty in en- forcing the laws against concealed weapons. It seems that the Birmingham statute not only requires that weapons shall not be concealed, but that they must be carried in a certain way. It would appear also that the Mayor con