State v. Barnett.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1890 |
| Citation | 34 W.Va. 74 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State v. Barnett. |
A mere conditional threat of violence by one person towards another, unaccompanied by any act or conduct on the part of the party making such threat evincing a design to do violence to the other person, will not justify the carrying of a revolver under section 7, c. 148, Code 1887.
It is not enough to justify carrying such revolver for a person to prove by himself or others, that he had good cause to believe and did believe, that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of another; but he must show the facts and circumstances on which such belief is based, in order that the jury may determine whether the defendant believed and had good cause to believe, that lie was in such danger.
Fear of harm from a dog will not justify carrying a revolver.
A United States mail-carrier, merely because lie is such, has no right under said statute to carry a revolver.
W. Miller and C. E. Hogg for plaintiff in error.
Attorney-General Alfred Caldwell for the State. Brannon, Judge:
Kendall Barnett was indicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson county, in August, 1889, for unlawfully carrying a revolver, and a jury was waived, and the case tried by the court, winch found him guilty and passed judgment against him for twenty five dollars fie, to which he obtained this writ of error.
He assigns as error, that the Circuit Court erred in finding him guilty and rendering judgment against him. The bill of exceptions shows that the defendant admitted that he had within one year next before the tin ding of said indictment, and within said county of Jackson, carried a revolver; and the State here rested its case. The defendant then proved by himself the following facts: That, at all times when he carried said revolver, he was a mail-carrier in the said county; that, as such mail-carrier, it was his duty to carry the United States mail from the post-office in the village of Cottageville, in said county to the railroad near said village; that he was required to make four trips each day with said mail; that defendant, and also one dames Scott, lived in said village; that the said Scott lived by the side of the public road, along which defendant was compelled to travel in carrying said mail as aforesaid; that said James Scott had, during the time defendant carried said revolver, a vicious and dangerous dog, which had frequently attacked defendant while passing along the road with said mail, and had driven defendant from the said public road. Defendant also proved that before he carried said revolver the said dames Scott had been mad at him, and had threatened to beat and whip him, and to have his blood, it'defendant killed his (Scott's) dog; that said Scott had so threatened defendant personally, and also to other persons, who had communicated said threats to defendant. Defendant also proved that he was at the time aforesaid a quiet and peaceable citizen, of good character and standing in the community in which he lived, and that, at the time he carried said revolver, he had good cause to believe, and did believe, that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of said James Scott, and from said dog, and that he was, in good" faith, carrying said revolver in self-defence, and for no other purpose whatever; that said dog had never bitten defendant, and that defendant passed said Scott's at other times when not carrying the mail, but that he carried no weapon, except when carrying the mail.
And the defendant also proved by Barnett, another
witness, that the said dog was dangerous and vicious; that he had seen said dog attack said Kendall Barnett, defendant, while on the public road carrying the mail, and that said James Scott had said in witness's presence that he (Scott) would beat defendant to death if defendant did not pay over certain money which had been bet; and that witness had communicated these threats of said Scott to defendant. Defendant further proved by himself that he had? after the said threats of said Scott, applied to one 1). W. Rhodes, a justice, for a peace-warrant for said Scott, and that said Rhodes advised him not to take such warrant, but to get along without it; and also proved by himself that lie had carried said revolver only when engaged in carrying the mail as aforesaid, and that he did not carry it at other times, although said Scott lived near him. And the defendant further proved by D. W. Rhodes that he (said Rhodes) was at the time aforesaid, and is, a justice of the said county; that he resided, and does now reside, at the said village of Cottageville; that said defendant, some time in the summer of 1888, applied to him, as justice, for a peace-warrant for said flames Scott; that he did not issue such warrant, but told de...
To continue reading
Request your trial