Case Name: TRAYLOR v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-03-15
Citations: 239 S.W. 982
Docket Number: No. 6716
Parties: TRAYLOR v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 239
Pages: 982–984

Head Matter:
TRAYLOR v. STATE.
(No. 6716.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 15, 1922.
Rehearing Denied April 26, 1922.)
Í. Weapons @=>17(4) — Evidence that defendant carried pistol intending to remain off premises where he lived supported conviction.
In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, evidence that appellant when arrested was carrying a pistol 29 or 39 feet from the premises where he lived, and his return on the premises was involuntary, held sufficient to support a verdict of guilty as showing he had not left intending to immediately return.
2. Criminal law @=>1092(16) — Bill of exceptions not filed at trial cannot be considered.
A bill of exceptions to a charge cannot be considered on appeal where it was not filed at the trial.
3. Criminal' law <@=o-1090 (14) — Failure to give special charges in misdemeanor prosecution must be presented by hills of exception.
A prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol being a misdemeanor case, failure of the court to give special charges requested in writing as required by Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. 1916, art. 739, must be presented on appeal by bills of exception.
4. Criminal law <gí=^> 1087(2) — Record must show bills of exception properly approved and filed.
Bills of exception to the failure of the court to give requested special charges to the jury cannot be considered where the record does not show the date of approval by the trial judge and proper filing thereof.
On Motion for Rehearing.
5. Crimina! law <®=> I (22(6) — On appeal for refusal of special charge record must show charge presented after close of evidence and before argument.
Where, on appeal it is not shown by recitals at the beginning or conclusion of the requested charge or by notation of the trial judge thereon, that the charge was presented after close of the evidence and before argument as required by Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proc. 1916, arts. 735, 737, 737a, there is nothing for review, unless bills of exception properly filed and approved show such facts.
6. Criminal law @=>763, 764(8) — Charge held not on weight of evidence.
A charge in a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol that defendant should be acquitted if the jury had a reasonable doubt that he left the premises where he lived carrying a pistol held not on the weight of the evidence.
7. Weapons @=>17(6) — Charge held not an unauthorized burden on accused.
A charge in a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol that defendant should be acquitted if the jury had a reasonable doubt that he left the premises where he lived carrying a pistol held not to put an unauthorized burden on defendant.
8. Criminal law <§¡=3814(6)— Charge not warranted on issue not raised by evidence.
In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the court, with regard to defendant’s right to carry the pistol on the premises or during temporary absence therefrom, properly refused to charge that, if defendant left the premises where he lived carrying a pistol, with the intention of immediately returning, he should be acquitted, where there was no evidence of such intention.
9. Criminal law @=3800(2) — Premises need not be defined in charge to jury.
In a charge to the jury in a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, it was unnecessary to define the meaning of- the word “premises,” as the word is in common use, and Pen. Code 1911, art. 10, declares that all words not specially defined are to be taken in the sense in which they are commonly understood.
Appeal from Fannin County Court; A. P. Bolding, Judge.
Ed Traylor was convicted' of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Paul McMahan and Cunningham, McMahon & Lipscomb, all of Bonham, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was convicted for unlatvfully carrying a pistol, punishment being assessed at a fine of $199.
On the day appellant was arrested the constable, sheriff, and deputy sheriff had occasion to go to the home of Gus Thompson, who lived in Bonham. What carried them to Thompson's house is not disclosed by the record. The sheriff and deputy went into the house, the constable remaining in a car. Appellant was seen to leave the house and go out by the barn, across an alley, and get over a high board fence into a lot on property which belonged to Mrs. Russell. Appellant was running at the time he was crossing the alley and going over the fence into the lot, and was halted by the constable. He and the sheriff caused appellant to come back oyer the fence into the alley, where he was searched, and found to have a pistol in his possession. Appellant was boarding at Thompson's house and his contention was that he never left the alley, and there was arrested, and that this alley was private property belonging to Thompson, and therefore, as he boarded at Thompson's home he had a right to carry the pistol on the premises and in the alley.
The motion for a new trial does not complain that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, but this question is raised by appellant in his brief. It is contended that, if he left the premises of Thompson only temporarily, and with the intention of immediately returning, he would not be guilty of carrying the pistol. As we understand the record, appellant was not only carrying the pistol but was proceeding xather rapidly with it, if the state's witnesses are to be believed, and that he had gotten some 20 or SO feet off of the premises where he boarded. His return was not a voluntary act on his part, but he was caused to come back by the officers halting him and compelling him to return.
By bill of exception No. 1 complaint is made at paragraph 3 of the court's charge. The ease appears to have been tried on July 7. 1921. The bill of exception was not filed until August 24, 1921. It nowhere appears in the record that any objection or exception in writing was filed to the charge at the time of trial. The exception, therefore, cannot be considered. A number of special charges were requested. Although bearing file mark of date July 7, 1921, they do not show to have been presented to the judge before his main charge was read.
This being a misdemeanor case, complaint at the failure to give the special charges must be brought forward by bills of exception. Vernon's C. O. P. art. 739, p. 499; Stephens v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234 S. W. 540; Parroccini v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234 S. W. 671. An attempt to meet this requirement appears to have been made, for we find in the record what purports to be bills of exception Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the failure to give the special charges. The date of approval by the trial judge is not shown, and. so far as the record discloses, the bills of exception have never been filed. In this condition of the record they cannot be considered. Branch's Anno. P. O. § 219, p. 140; Oliver v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 50. 124 S. W. 637.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
@=>For otter cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes