Case Name: SMITH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-10-13
Citations: 179 S.W. 711
Docket Number: No. 3802
Parties: SMITH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 179
Pages: 711–711

Head Matter:
SMITH v. STATE.
(No. 3802.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 13, 1915.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1915.)
1. Weapons <®=oll — Unlawful Caeeting of —Defense.
Though accused came to a city as a traveler, that fact does not warrant him in carrying a pistol about the streets for several days while searching for work.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 10-14; Dec. Dig. ®=>11.]
2. Weapons ®=j11 — Unlawful Caeeting of —Defense.
The right of a traveler to carry a pistol will not defeat a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a weapon, where the journey was broken and temporarily abandoned while accused burglarized a house.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 10-14; Dec. Dig. <@=>11.]
Appeal from Tarrant County Court, Jesse M. Brown, Judge.
Deo Smith was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Craves & Houtchens, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and his punishment assessed at 30 days' confinement in the county jail.
Appellant presents but one assignment of error, and that is: He contends that the evidence raises the issue he was a traveler at the time of his' arrest, and had a right to carry the pistol, and the court erred in refusing to give his special charge presenting that issue. He testifies his home is Atlanta, Ga., but the last place he worked was in New Orleans, La.; that he had been in Galveston, Alvin, Houston, Waco, Hillsboro, and Ft. Worth in search of work; that he had been in Ft. Worth at the time of his arrest for 5 days, but says that on the morning of his arrest, he boarded a freight train, intending to leave Ft. Worth, but was put off at Polytechnic. If this was all the testimony, the issue might be raised, although we are inclined to think not so, for from his testimony the conclusion is inevitable that he had the pistol on him all the 5 days he was in Ft. Worth, and, if so, he had, for the time being, ceased his journey, and could not carry a pistol on his person as he went about the streets of Ft. Worth day after day, even though he was searching for work, as he contends. Alexander v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 252, 122 S. W. 387. But the evidence goes further in this' case, and there is no dispute as to such facts. If appellant, as he contends, got on the train to leave Ft. Worth, and was put off at Polytechnic, he was seen sitting on the railroad track about one-half mile from where he was arrested. When he left the ráilroad track, he was seen to go to several houses, and, when finally arrested at Mr. Latimore's house, with a pistol on his person, he admits he was engaged in burglarizing the house. This was not incident to his journey, and he had ceased his travels and engaged in an unlawful enterprise.
Judgment affirmed.