Lloyd v. State, 23694.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1947
• Docket Number: No. 23694.,23694.
• Citation: 204 S.W.2d 633
• Parties: LLOYD v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 633

204 S.W.2d 633

LLOYD v. STATE.

No. 23694.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1947.

Rehearing Denied October 15, 1947.

Appeal from County Court at Law, Travis County; Jack Sparks, Judge.

Jack Lloyd was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of aggravated assault and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of one month.

The record reflects that appellant had some land leased which was located beyond that owned by Everett Looney and Ed Clark. There was a road which led from the Austin-Bee Cave road through the Rob Roy premises of which the Looney and Clark land was a part. This road extended through and beyond the Looney and Clark land to the river and across the river. There was evidence that this road had been used by the people owning land beyond the Looney and Clark property since the year 1900, and by the public generally; that the County of Travis recognized it as a public road, carried it on its county map as such, and had it worked and repaired. On the 29th day of June, 1946, when appellant was on his way to his leased premises, he found the gate across said road leading through the Looney-Clark property locked and he could not get to his premises so he cut the link in the chain through which the lock was fastened and drove through to his premises. When he returned, about an hour or an hour and a half later, he found that the gate had been locked again. He undertook to cut the chain again, for the purpose of getting out, but while he was endeavoring to do so Mr. Looney, his son-in-law Mr. James, and a Mr. Harbeson, came to the gate in Mr. Looney's automobile, and drove it between the gate and appellant's car. Mr. Looney and his son-in-law got out of their car and walked up to the left-hand side of appellant's car. Appellant asked them if they were going to let him out, to which they replied, "No." Appellant then undertook to get out of his car but Mr. Looney and his son-in-law braced themselves against the door to confine him in the car, whereupon appellant reached for a 22 caliber rifle which he had in the car. He then pried the door open with his knees; got out of his car; lined all the parties up and, according to the state's evidence, pointed his rifle at James and fired. Appellant's version of the occurrence was that after he had forced the door of his automobile open and started to get out of the car with his rifle, Mr. James grabbed the barrel of the rifle and in the tussle over the gun it was discharged. Appellant then made them give him the key to the lock on the gate, as well as the key to their automobile. He then drove their car out of his way, unlocked the gate and drove through. He took charge of them and made them walk down a hill some distance. He drove to the City of Austin where he surrendered the keys to a deputy sheriff and told him what had occurred.

Appellant complains of the action of the...