Case Name: CASSI v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-12-10
Citations: 216 S.W. 1099
Docket Number: No. 5541
Parties: CASSI v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 216
Pages: 1099–1100

Head Matter:
(86 Tex. Cr. R. 369)
CASSI v. STATE.
(No. 5541.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 10, 1919.)
1. Weapons <©=>11(½) — Emploté’s eight to CAEEY WEAPON FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER UPON OEDEE OF EMPLOYEE.
Employé who was directed by employer to carry a pistol from one place of business to another may lawfully execute such order with the bona fide intent of leaving it at place to which it is carried, provided the pistol is not carried habitually or in roundabout ways or while he is loitering along the streets or unnecessarily ■deviating from the route to the place to which It is being carried.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>58 — Crime committed AT BEHEST OF EMPLOYEE.
The behest of an employer furnishes no ex-: cuse for the commission of an offense.
3. Weapons &wkey;>7 — Carrying weapons from ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.
A person may carry a pistol from his home to his store or from one store to another with the bona fide intent of leaving it at the place to which it is carried, provided pistol is not carried habitually or in roundabout ways or while loitering along streets or unnecessarily deviating from the route to the place to which it is being carried.
4. Criminal law ®=»565 — Proof to sustain CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF WEAPONS.
In prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, proof to sustain conviction must show that the unlawful carrying was before the filing of complaint.
Appeal from Tarrant County- Court; Hugh L. Small, Judge.
John Cassi was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Poulter & Koenig, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in tjhe county court of Tarrant county of the offensé of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and was punished by a fine of $100 and 30 days in jail..
This case will have to be reversed, because of the refusal of the trial court to permit appellant himself to testify, and also to show by other witnesses, that he was employed by one Cerna, and was directed by his employer, or the wife of his employer, to carry the pistol in question from one of the places of business of said employer, to another, at which latter place it was purposed that said pistol should be kept. Under our decisions, one who is directed by such employer to carry a pistol one time from one place of business to another may lawfully execute said order, under the limitations further referred to. Huff v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 441, 102 S. W. 407; Campbell v. State, 28 Tex. App. 44, 11 S. W. 832; Mathonican v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 471, 102 S. W. 1123; Waterhouse v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 551, 138 S. W. 386; Ellias v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 479, 144 S. W. 1139.
The behest of an employer furnishes no excuse for the commission of an offense, but it is well settled that the employer himself might carry a pistol from his home to his store, or from one store to another, with the bona, fide intent of leaving it at the place to which it was so carried, and that what one may lawfully do for himself he may do by an agent; but it is also well settled that such carrying, as.above indicated, may not be habitual. Chambers v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 293, 30 S. W. 357; Skeen v. State, 30 S. W. 218. Nor may said pistol be lawfully carried in roundabout ways, nor upon pretense that it is being carried from one place of business to another. Nor can the person claiming to he carrying same from one place to another loiter along the streets, or unnecessarily deviate from the route from one of said places to the other. Cordova v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 353, 97 S. W. 87.
It is not disclosed by this record whether the place at which appellant was arrested was on the usual and customary way from one of said employer's places of business to the other, or not; but there is some inference that it was not. If it be disclosed upon another trial that, at the time he was arrested with the pistol, appellant was loitering on the streets, or was not bona fide carrying said pistol from one place of business of his employer to another, then in such case, appellant would be guilty, and the fact that he was ordered by his employer to take said pistol from one place to another would constitute no defense.
We further observe that the complaint was filed on May 22d, and that the officer who arrested appellant, and was the only state witness, testified that he saw him with the pistol on or about May 21st, and nowhere states that it was before the complaint was filed. The proof should show that .the unlawful carrying was before the complaint was filed.
Reversed and remanded.
^soFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes