Case Name: Ed Traylor v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-04-26
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 262
Docket Number: No. 6716
Parties: Ed Traylor v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 262–266

Head Matter:
Ed Traylor v. The State.
No. 6716.
Decided March 15, 1922.
Decided April 26, 1922.
1.—Unlawfully Carrying Fistol—Own Premises.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a pistol, defendant claimed that he was on his own premises, but the record on appeal showed that defendant had gotten some twenty or thirty feet off the premises where he boarded; that his return thereto 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, the conviction is sustained.
2. —Same—Bills of Exception—Charge of Court—Requested Charge.
Where it nowhere appeared in the record on appeal that anv obieoHon or exception in writing was filed to the charge of the court at the time of the trial, the same cannot be considered on appeal; neither can requested cnargeg be considered which did not show that they had been presented to the judge before his main charge was read. Following Oliver v. State, 58 Texas Grim. Rep., 50, and other cases.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Bill of Exceptions—Transcript.
Where appellant filed with his motion for rehearing a corrected transcript duly certified which shows that the bills of exception herein filed were approved by the trial judge and filed during the term in which the trial was had, the transcript will be considered as reflecting a true record.
4. —Same—Charge of Court—Burden of Proof—Own Premises—Words and Phrases.
By the provisions of article 10, Penal Code, it is declared that all words except those specially defined are to be taken in the sense in which they are understood in common language, and there is no special definition in the code of the word “premises” and there was, therefore, no reversible error in refusing requested charges as to the extension of the premises, etc., nor was the court’s charge on the weight of the evidence, nor did it place an unauthorized burden on appellant.
Appeal from the County Court of Fannin. Tried below before the Honorable A. P. Bolding.
Appeal from a conviction of carrying a pistol; penalty, a 'fine of $100.
The opinion states the case.
R. F. Licscomb for appellant.
Cited :Ball v. State, 25 S. W. Rep., •627; Parker v. State, 174 id., 343. Rogers v. State, 213 id., 637.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
—Appellant was convicted for unlawfully carrying a pistol, punishment being assessed at a fine $100.
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 over 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 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 rather rapidly with it, if the State's witnesses are to be believed, and that he had gotten some twenty or thirty 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 number one complaint is made at paragraph three of the court's charge. The case 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 ©r exception in writing was filed to the charge at the time of trial The exception therefore can not 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 ease complaint at the failure to give the special charges must be brought forward by bills of exception. Vernon's C. C. P. Art. 739, page 499; Stephens v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 245, 234 S. W. Rep. 540; Parroccini v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 320, 234 S. W. Rep. 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 numbers 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 can not be considered. Branch's Anno. P. C., Section 219, page 140; Oliver v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep. 50; 124 S. W. Rep. 637.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.