Case Name: Isidor (Bells) Mireles v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-01-31
Citations: 80 Tex. Crim. 648
Docket Number: No. 4349
Parties: Isidor (Bells) Mireles v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 648–652

Head Matter:
Isidor (Bells) Mireles v. The State.
No. 4349.
Decided January 31, 1917.
Rehearing denied February 28, 1917.
1.—Carrying Bowie Knife—Definition of Offense.-
Under article 1027, Penal Code, a bowie knife is defined to be a knife intended to be worn upon the person which is capable of inflicting death, and not commonly known as a pocketknife and where the knife carried by the defendant was carried by him in a scabbard and the blade was about nine inches in length with a handle four or five inches long, such character of knife is embraced in the statutory definition of a bowie knife. Following Hernandez v. State, 32 Texas Grim. Rep., 271.
S.—Same—Own Premises—Charge of Court.
It is no offense for one to carry a bowie knife on his own premises, and where the evidence showed such state of facts, the court should so have instructed the jury.
S.—Same—Arrest—Own Premises—Charge of Court.
' Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a bowie knife, the evidence showed that defendant was a tenant, and was arrested on his place which he had rented from the landlord, and forced to leave his said premises when he had this knife on his person and to go along the public road, the court should have submitted a requested charge that this would not be a violation of law, if 'he carried the knife with him.
4. —Same—Charge of Court—Own Premises Defined.
Where defendant claimed that he had the right to carry arms prohibited by law on his person, off of his place to where he was at work for another person picking cotton, such contention was untenable.
5. —Same—Charge of Court—Requested Charges—Defensive Theories.
Where the evidence showed that defendant carried the. prohibited knife at three separate and distinct places and times, and was violating the law only in one instance, that is when he carried the same on some one else’s premises, the judge should have submitted a proper charge on each phase of the case, and the general charge that it was not unlawful for a person to carry a bowie knife on his own property or on property which he had rented or leased was insufficient under the facts of the instant case.
Appeal from the County Court of Guadalupe. Tried below before-the Hon. J. B. Williams.
. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a bowie knife; penalty, a fine of one hundred dollars.
The opinion states the case.
P. E. Campbell, for appellant.
On question as to meaning of bowie knife: Wynn v. State, 43 S. W. Rep., 289.
On question of right of tenant to carry arms: Campbell v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 44; Ross v. State, 28 id., 199; Craig v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 195.
On question of carrying arms on premises of another and moving from one place to another: Hare v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 395; Grant v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 266.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PBENDEBGAST, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying on his person a bowie knife and assessed the lowest punishment.
It is unnecessary to take up all of appellant's assigned errors. He contended that the knife with which he is charged with unlawfully carrying was not a bowie knife, but was a butcher knife for cutting meat, bread, etc. We find with the record a certain knife in a scabbard, the blade of which must be some nine inches in length" with a handle four or five inches long, but it is in no way identified as the knife and scabbard which was found on appellant. Our statute (art. 1027, P. C.) prescribes that a bowie knife means any knife intended to be worn upon the person which is capable of inflicting death, and not commonly known as a pocketknife. The knife described by the witnesses, and certainly the knife with the record if it was the knife carried by appellant on his person, would certainly be embraced in the statutory definition of a bowie knife. In Hernandez v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 271, where a party was indicted for an assault with intent to murder with a bowie knife and the proof showed that the knife with which the offense in that instance was committed was a,butcher knife, it was held to be in effect the same thing in the view of such statute. The testimony by appellant himself in this case shows that he carried this knife in a scabbard on his person a great deal in and about his own premises.
The law is that it is no offense for a man to carry such arms as this, or a pistol, about his person on his own premises. In view of the testimony showing he so carried it on premises rented by him, the court should have so instructed the jury in this instance.
The testimony further showed, it seems without contradiction,- that the fact that appellant was claimed to be unlawfully carrying said knife on his person was communicated to the sheriff, and the sheriff instructed one of the witnesses in effect to arrest the appellant and take him along a public road off of his own premises to the place of another party, to which the officer was going. This witness thereupon arrested appellant on the premises of which he was the tenant and while under this arrest forced him to leave his own premises, when he had the knife on his person in a scabbard, go along-a public road and to the place designated bv the officer off of his premises. Later the officer arrived there, searched the appellant and found such a knife on his person in a scabbard stuck in his pants. The State was particular to make all this proof, not only by the officer but by other witnesses as well, and it seems the State, because of the appellant's carrying this knife on this occasion, sought his conviction. The appellant requested a charge to the effect that, if he had been arrested as stated and forced to go from his rented premises wherein he lived along the public road and to the other place designated by the sheriff, that that would not be an unlawful carrying of said knife under the law. This charge was refused. It clearly presents error. The charge should have been given.
• The testimony on another phase of the case, though disputed, showed in effect that appellant went from his own rented premises into the field of another party with this knife on his person, and there he and other persons had a fuss or fight and that he had this knife on this occasion. The testimony is disputed as to whether or not the appellant was picking cotton under the employment of the owner of that field at the time. He claims, however, that he had the right to carry arms on his person off of his place to where he was at work for another person. This is not the law. If that were true, practically every person in Texas could lawfully carry prohibited arms on or about his person.
For the errors above pointed out the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
MOBBOW, Judge, absent.