Kendall v. State

Decision Date23 March 1907
Citation101 S.W. 189,118 Tenn. 156
PartiesKENDALL v. STATE.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Error to Criminal Court, Davidson County; W. M. Hart, Judge.

W. C Cherry, for plaintiff in error.

Assistant Attorney General Faw, for the State.

SANSOM Special Judge.

Plaintiff in error was indicted in the criminal court for Davidson county for carrying a pistol unlawfully. He was tried before the judge without a jury, and found guilty, and a fine assessed of $50 and costs against him. His motion for a new trial having been overruled, he has appealed to this court.

The facts are very simple, and consist of a short statement by a single witness, from which it appears that plaintiff in error was a hack driver, and that on the 20th of September, 1905 in Nashville, Davidson county, Tenn., he became involved in a difficulty with one Perry Cotton, who, with a large stick attacked him, and either struck or struck at him several times with the stick; plaintiff in error being at the time seated on the driver's seat of the hack. While Cotton was so striking or striking at him with his stick, plaintiff in error arose from the seat, lifted up the top thereof, and reaching into a box or compartment under it, drew forth a pistol which he had previously placed there, and with this pistol fired one shot at Cotton, his assailant, who thereupon ran, and plaintiff in error then replaced the pistol in the box or compartment under the seat from which he had drawn it. These are the entire facts as disclosed by the record.

The insistence is that, under the facts stated, plaintiff in error is not guilty of the offense with which he is charged and of which he had been convicted, and the judgment should therefore be reversed, and the case dismissed. The presentment is predicated on section 6641 of Shannon's Code, which reads as follows:

"It shall not be lawful for any person to carry publicly or privately any dirk, razor concealed about his person, sword cane, loaded cane, slungshot or brass knucks, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistol or revolver, or any kind of pistol, except the army or navy pistol, usually used in warfare, which shall be carried openly in the hand."

The offense against the law under this enactment is the carrying of any of the forbidden weapons with the intent of going armed. The law may be violated just as fully and completely by the carrying of the weapon in his handbag as in his pocket. It is the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Blazovitch
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1921
    ... ... Leonard v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 119 S.W. 98, ... Mayfield v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 103, 170 S.W. 308, ... De Friend v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 329, 153 S.W ... 881, Hill v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 619, 100 S.W ... 384, Wagner v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 188 S.W ... 1001, and Kendall v. State, 118 Tenn. 156, 101 S.W ... 189, 121 Am.St.Rep. 994, 11 Ann.Cas. 1104 ...          The ... manifest purpose of the statute is prevention of the carrying ... of deadly weapons, to the end that the temptation and power ... to employ them in assaults upon human beings, ... ...
  • State v. Conley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1919
    ...sitting in the wagon. Wagner v. State, 188 S.W. 1001; Mayfield v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 103; DeFriend v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 329; Kendall v. State, 118 Tenn. 156; Leonard v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. 84; Hill State, 50 Tex. Cr. 619; 40 Cyc. 856. (2) Appellant's sixth allegation in his motion for a new......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT