Case Name: WORTHAM v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-30
Citations: 252 S.W. 1063
Docket Number: No. 7756
Parties: WORTHAM v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 252
Pages: 1063–1065

Head Matter:
WORTHAM v. STATE.
(No. 7756.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 30, 1923.
Rehearing Granted June 20, 1923.)
I.Criminal law <§=»I092(9) — Bills of exception filed after expiration of time not considered.
Where the time granted for filing bills of exception had expired, an order made after the expiration extending the time for filing was without authority, and bills filed pfter the expiration cannot be considered on appeal.
2. Weapons <&wkey;l7(4) — Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for carrying pistol.
In a prosecution for carrying a pistol, evidence that the officers searching accused’s car. found a pistol in the front seat, in which the accused and his wife were sitting, held sufficient to support a conviction.
3. Weapons <&wkey;Hl I (2) —• No defense to charge of carrying pistol that accused was a traveler going to point 35 miles distant in another county.
In a prosecution for carrying a pistol, the fact that the accused was going from a point in one county to a point 35 miles distant in another county did .not entitle him to exemption from the law as a traveler.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law &wkey;>369'(2) — Admission of evidence that one accused of possession of pistol was carrying whisky held error.
In a prosecution for carrying a pistol, defended on the ground that the accused was a traveler, admission of evidence that, in searching the car in which the accused was riding and in which the pistol was found, the officers found whisky, to rebut accused’s claim that he was a traveler, was error; possession of the whisky being a felony, and proof thereof not being necessary to develop the res ges-te or to show accused’s guilt of carrying a pistol.
5. Weapons &wkey;>l7(6) — Refusal of charge that, if pistol which person was accused of carrying belonged to another, not to convict, held error.
In a prosecution for carrying a pistol, in which defendant testified that the ear in which the accused was riding and the pistol which was found therein belonged to another, and that the accused knew nothing about the pistol, refusal to charge that, if the automobile and pistol belonged to another, and if the accused did not assume control or possession of the pistol, he could not be convicted, was error.
Appeal from Navarro County Court; A. P. Mays, Judge.
J. L. Wortham was convicted of carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Gibson & Lovett, of Corsicana, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Navarro county for carrying on and about his person a pistol,, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100.
Our Assistant Attorney General moves to strike out appellant's bills of exception for the reason that the time originally granted in which to file same expired prior to the' entry of an order extending the time for such filing. The order extending such time would therefore be without authority, and the bills of exception, appearing to have been filed after the expiration of the time, cannot be considered by us. Griffin v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 424, 128 S. W. 1134; Sanders v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 34, 129 S. W. 606; Palmer v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 640, 245 S. W. 238; Harr v. State (No. 7199) 254 S. W. -, opinion handed down May 23, 1923.
The only question remaining is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Appellant and his wife and some other parties were in a car, the said other parties being in the back seat and appellant and his wife in the front seat. A pistol was found in the front seat by officers who searched the car. It was handed to them by appellant. This would seem to justify the conclusion that the pistol was then in the possession of and being carried by appellant. The only justification offered for such action was "upon the theory that appellant was going from a place in Freestone county to another point in Navarro county about 35 miles distant, and that consequently he was a traveler. This question was discussed and settled adversely to the contention of appellant in the case of George v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 179, 234 S. W. 87, to which reference is made for a review of the authorities.
Binding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Rehearing pending.