[ Back | Home ]
[Cite as Stanfield v. State, (Tex. Crim. App.) 34 S.W. 116 (1896).]
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Feb. 12, 1896.)
One who went upon a visit to a place 15 miles distant from his home was not a traveler, within the proviso exempting travelers from prosecution for carrying concealed weapons.
Appeal from Hill county court; W. P. Cunningham, Judge.
Charlie Stanfield was convicted of carrying a pistol, and appeals. Affirmed.
John D. Pitts, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
HENDERSON, J. The appellant was tried on an information charging him with unlawfully carrying a pistol on and about his person, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25. The defense set up by appellant is that he was a traveler at the time he was found with the pistol. The proof showed that he lived with his father in Hill county, and had gone to an uncle's place, some 15 miles distant, in McLennan county, on a visit, and returned the same day. On his route back home he was arrested, and a pistol found on his person. In contemplation of the law, as we construe it, he was not a traveler. See Darby v. State, 23 Tex. App. 407, 5 S.W. 90. The judgment is affirmed.