cause the arrest of offendersby the use of lawful,meanain order that they may be broughtto punislaaont.(0. C. 32.)"
&ile Article 36, Code of %ninalProoadure, reads as fol- lows,
"&t. 36. (45) (44) Who are peace officers
"The followingare 'peaoeoffioersr' the sheriffand his deputies,constable,the mar- shal or policemanof an incorporatedtown Or oity,.theofficers,non-ocmmiaaioned offioers and privatesof the State ranger force, and,eny privateperson speciallyappointedto~exeoute oriminalprooesa. (0.C. 63, hots 1919a p. 264.)"
The last quoted artialedoes not nams a oou& oamaiaaioner as a '"peaoe offioer,'neitherdoes it name a justioeof the peace as 8uohJ but in the 0188 of PattonV. State, 129 Ten. '%. Rl 269, 86 S: W. (Zd) 774, we find.thefollowinglanguage(after oitingthe various statutes~snd constitutional provisionsquoted abore)r ". . . While a juatioeof the peace is not denom- inatedas'a,peaoeoffioerunder articleSS; C.C.P., yet this aourthold in the case of JonesV. State (Tex. Cr. dpp.) 66 S.W. 92, thatt 'tiewho~is auth- orizedto ,preserve or maintainthe publicpeaoe,is a peace offioer. of courae,it would hare been oompetentfor the legialataire, in enactingthe pistol law, to have prescribedwhat officers. . . were authoriaedto oarry pisto.laJ but when they used the genera.1term, excludingfrau the opera- tion of the law all "peaoe officers,"it applied Hon. Homer Garrison,Jr., Page 4
as well to those who were constitutedpeaoe offi- oers under the constitutionas to those who were peaoe officersby the act of the legislature. While we have oonoededin what has been said above that the legislaturedoes not moan or treat wunQ- judges aa peace offloers,yet us think it is by no means clear that they did not intendto regardthem as suoh, aa oertainartioleaof the Code appearto anathemwith functionspertaining' to peace officers.+++ Fe hold that the oonstitu- tion m&es county judgespeace officers,end that ahen the legislature,in enactingthe pistol law, exoludedfraa its operationall peaoe officers, appellantwas embraoedin this list, sndas auoh peace officerhe was authorizedto oarry a pistol.
e&rt&le 484, P-C., exemptsall peaoe offloers frau the operationof lirtiole403, P-C., prohibdt- ing the carryingof a pistol. In the case of Tippettv. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 189 S.W. 466, 486, this court said:.Qyvirtue of section12 of artiole6 of the Constitution, all judges ++e are +++ peaoe offioers.+** A oounty judge is a peace offi- osr, then there is no esoapefrom holdingthat a judge of the oorporationoourt is also a peaoe offi- oer. eee &d if all judges are pesoe offloeraby virtue of the oonatitutionalproviai~ hereinbefore recited,then appellant,bgvirtue of being a judge of the oorporationoourt,muld be a peaoeoffioer, and authoriaedto oarry a pistol,evenwhen not in the .. actual.'dischargeof the dutiesof tha3~ffloe.': b.
'We see no good reasonwhy a justiceof tba~: -~, who-is a judge of a justicecourtwould not oome aith- in the defdnitionof a peaoe officerunder said ocnati- tutibnalprovision. We are thereforeoonstrained'to hold, in keepingalth the authoritiesabove oited,. that the appellant,being a juatioeof the peace,was a peace offioerand authoricedto oamy a pistol on the oocasionin question,even though he ma not in the actual disohargeof the dutiesof the off3ce. *. . . . * Ron* Rcmer C9rrisaP1, Jr., Page 6
See also Satterwhitevs. State, 112 Tax. Cr.