Norton v. State

• Decision Date: 18 June 1914
• Docket Number: 301
• Citation: 11 Ala.App. 216,65 So. 689
• Parties: NORTON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

65 So. 689

11 Ala.App. 216

NORTON v. STATE.

No. 301

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 18, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; M. Sollie, Judge.

Albert Norton was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W.L. Lee, of Columbia, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS J.

The act entitled "An act to regulate the right to carry a pistol in this state," approved August 26, 1909 (Gen. & Local Acts 1909, pp. 258, 259), makes it unlawful for "any person to carry a pistol about his person on premises not his own or under his control." Our Supreme Court, in the construction of this statute, has said:

"It *** is intended to prevent one person from going around with a pistol upon the premises of another, and does not prohibit the carrying of same, if not concealed, upon the highway or elsewhere other than upon the premises of another." Isaiah v. State, 176 Ala. 28, 58 So 53.

In the present case it appears that, at the time the defendant carried the pistol in question, one Holmes was operating on his own premises a public gin, which was located along the side of and near the public road that passed or led by said gin; and that he (Holmes), for purposes of egress and ingress to and from his gin to the said public road, had opened up on his said premises a road, which led from the said public road to his said gin, and over which the public were impliedly invited to travel in bringing their cotton to and from his gin or in coming there for other purposes connected therewith. While the state's evidence tended to show that the defendant, who came in his buggy from the public road to the gin over the ginhouse road mentioned with his pistol in the bottom of his buggy, did, after reaching the gin, get out of his buggy, pick up his pistol, and with it in his hand go out of the road into the ginhouse yard; yet the evidence for the defendant tended to show that at no time did he get outside of this ginhouse road with his pistol, but that he remained in said road during all the time that he had the pistol while at the gin and that the pistol was never concealed.

At the conclusion of the evidence, he requested two charges, the refusal of the court to give which is the only point presented by the record, to wit:

(1) "The court charges the jury that, if they believe from the evidence that the owner of the gin property opened a road leading from the public road to the gin property and dedicated to the public the road as long as the gin was run as a public gin, then the defendant had the right to be there, and if they further find that the defendant did not conceal the pistol about his person, while there, they should acquit the defendant."

(2) "The court charges the jury that the law against carrying an unconcealed pistol on property not his own does not prevent the carrying

...