Younger v. State

• Decision Date: 17 February 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 3460.)
• Citation: 173 S.W. 1039
• Parties: YOUNGER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

173 S.W. 1039

YOUNGER v. STATE.

(No. 3460.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 17, 1915.

Appeal from Henderson County Court; C. D. Owen, Judge.

C. C. Younger was convicted of carrying a pistol, and appeals. Affirmed.

Ernest A. Landman, of Athens, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol. He was a young man, and had been in Henderson county a few months. He had worked for several parties; one of them for about four months, and the others only a short time. He was working wherever he could find something to do, and when he would get out of work at one place he would hunt work at other places. It seems he had nothing except what he wore, and a six-shooter, found upon his person. He testified he had no other goods, not even a trunk or hand grip. It is further in evidence that he was seeking work in Henderson county, not far from the dividing line between that and Navarro county, when he had determined, if he failed to get work that day in Henderson county, he would cross the river into the other county and seek employment. The testimony indicates that he had been in what he calls the "bottom" to assist some woman whose wagon had been "bogged." Upon leaving that place seeking work, he passed a house where parties were trying to rope a yearling in a lot. He suggested that he could rope the yearling for them like they roped them in West Texas. He secured a rope and made a failure on the first throw at the animal. Upon stooping down to pick up the rope, the constable, whom appellant was assisting in trying to rope the yearling, discovered what he said was the print or impress of a pistol. When appellant threw the second time he succeeded in putting the rope on the yearling, which jerked him around, and the constable then discovered the fact what he had seen as the impress of a pistol was in fact a pistol. He arrested him and took the weapon from him. So there is no question of the fact that defendant had the pistol. There seems to be no question of the fact that he was seeking work with a view, if he failed that day in Henderson county, that he would cross the river into another county for that purpose.

His contention is that he was a traveler. If he was, he ought not to have been convicted; if he was not, the conviction was right.

Charges were requested by appellant submitting this issue to the jury, which were refused by the court. The court, however, in the main charge, thus instructed the jury:

"You are further instructed that if you believe from the testimony that defendant was, at the time he was arrested, a traveler, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict not guilty."

This submitted the issue. The transcript fails to show that appellant excepted to the court's charge before being read to the jury and a request at that time for the submission of his special charges. His bill of exceptions states that he excepted to the main charge of the court, but does not say at what time he did so. The theory of the defendant was that he was...