Redus v. State
| Decision Date | 19 July 1887 |
| Citation | 82 Ala. 53,2 So. 713 |
| Parties | REDUS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Limestone county.
Indictment for carrying concealed weapon.
The defendant, Julius Redus, was indicted at the fall term, 1880 of the circuit court of Limestone for carrying a pistol concealed about his person. The opinion of the court states the description of the weapon, there seeming to be no contest in regard to carrying the same concealed about his person. The court charged the jury: "(2) That if the jury believe from the evidence that the pistol, by holding the pistol in one hand, and striking the hammer with a knife or other instrument held in the other hand, could be fired, it was a weapon or fire-arm, and the carrying of such a pistol concealed about the person would be contrary to law." The defendant duly excepted to the above charge; and, among other charges, which it is not necessary to set out requested the court to give the following: "(2) If the jury believe from the evidence that the pistol alleged to have been carried by defendant at the time of the alleged carrying had no mainspring, fire-pan, or other contrivance necessary to its being fired off, it was in the law incapable of being used as a pistol or fire-arm, within the meaning of the law; and the carrying of such an instrument, concealed or otherwise, is not an offense under the indictment, and your verdict should be not guilty." The court refused to give this charge and defendant duly excepted. Verdict and judgment having been rendered against defendant, he appeals.
T N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.
J J. Turrentine, for appellant.
The indictment is found under section 4109, Code 1876, and charges the defendant with carrying a pistol concealed about his person. The weapon was a small cartridge pistol, the handle and mainspring of which were broken, but, as the evidence tends to show, could be fired by holding it in one hand, and striking the hammer with a knife or other instrument. To constitute the statutory offense, it is not requisite that the pistol concealed should be complete in all its parts, or capable of direct and immediate use for offense or defense. Neither completeness, impaired condition, nor efficiency is a proper subject of inquiry, unless it has lost so many of its parts as to be harmless and worthless as a weapon,-ceases to be a fire-arm. The condition of a pistol may vary without destroying it essential nature. An unloaded pistol, or one difficult to discharge, or which cannot be discharged in the ordinary way, but can be by a match, or by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Middleton
...not violate a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons or requiring permits for pistols and revolvers. Redus v. State, 82 Ala. 53, 2 So. 713 (Sup.Ct.1913); People v. Jackson, 266 Cal.App.2d 341, 72 Cal.Rptr. 162 (D.Ct.App.1968); Bowman v. Commonwealth, 309 Ky. 414, 217 S.W.2d 9......
-
State v. Morris
...charged to have been carried had the handle and mainspring broken, and that it could not be discharged in the ordinary way. [Redus v. State, 82 Ala. 53, 2 So. 713.] So West Virginia it was held that although a revolver carried concealed on the person would not explode a cartridge, the offen......
-
State v. Dorsey
...wherein the language of the statute denouncing this offense is similar to ours (Fielding v. State, 135 Ala. 56, 33 So. 677; Redus v. State, 82 Ala. 53, 2 So. 713; State v. Tapit, 52 W.Va. 473, 44 S.E. 231; State v. Bollis, 73 Miss. 57, 19 So. 99; State v. Wardlaw, 43 Ark. 73; Commonwealth v......
-
State v. Riles
...wherein the language of the statute denouncing this offense is similar to ours. [Fielding v. State, 135 Ala. 56, 33 So. 677; Redus v. State, 82 Ala. 53, 2 So. 713; State Tapit, 52 W.Va. 473, 44 S.E. 231; State v. Bollis, 73 Miss. 57, 19 So. 99; State v. Wardlaw, 43 Ark. 73; Com. v. Murphy, ......