
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (No. 3233.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 14, 1914.)
    1. Weapons (§ 17) — Criminal Prosecution —Questions for Jury.
    In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, where the defense is that the defendant was a traveler at the time, the question whether he was a traveler in fact is one for the jury.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 20, 22-33; Dec. Dig. § 17.]
    2. Weapons (§§ 11, 17) — Criminal Prosecutions — Burden oe Proof — “Traveler.”
    The burden is upon one who is arrested while carrying a weapon upon his person to show that at the time he was a traveler — that- is, one on a real journey — and the mere fact that he was crossing back and forth from one county or state to another is not decisive on the question.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 10-14, 20, 22-33; Dec. Dig. §§ 11, 17.
    
    For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First-and Second Series, Travel.]
    3. Weapons (§ 17) — Criminal Prosecution —Evidence.
    In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, evidence held sufficient to warrant the judge in finding that the defendant, who had gone across the line to another state to procure some whisky, and was then returning, was not a traveler.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 20, 22-33; Dec. Dig. § 17.]
    Appeal from Harrison County Court; Geo. L. Huffman, Judge.
    Gillis Williams was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Bibb & Scott, of Marshall, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully carrying a pistol. The facts are clearly established and undisputed. ' Appellant lived in' the city of Marshall, in said county. He had ordered some whisky expressed to him at a town just across the Texas line in Louisiana, 26 miles from Marshall. He had heard that other parties had theretofore been arrested for bringing whisky from Louisiana into Marshall, and he wanted to get his whisky without any trouble. Late one evening he went in his buggy from Marshall eight miles to a station on the Texas & Pacific Railroad, where he put up his team, and soon thereafter took a Texas & Pacific train to said station on the same railroad just across the line in Louisiana. When he got to the Louisiana station he procured his whisky and waited for a train.- A Missouri, Kansas & Topeka train passed through the Louisiana station into Texas before the Texas & Pacific train arrived returning to Marshall. He took the Missouri, Kansas & Topeka train and went back thereon to a station in Texas, where it crossed the Texas- & Pacific line. The Missouri, Kansas & Topeka train did not go to Marshall. He got off the Missouri, Kansas & Topeka train at the station in Texas and waited for a later train on the Texas & Pacific. When that reached the station he got on it, intending to go back where he left his buggy, get his buggy, and take his whisky back into Marshall. On his return, when he had gotten into Texas, the sheriff observed him, and found a pistol on his person, which he had carried with him from his home on this trip, and the sheriff arrested him. His sole defense was that he claimed to be a traveler. The case was tried before the judge without a jury.

Who is a traveler under our pistol statute is not defined thereby, and has not otherwise been defined. This court has all the time held.that whether or not an accused is a traveler under the statute is a question for the jury. Shelton v. State, 27 Tex.App. 443, 11 S. W. 457, 11 Am. St. Rep. 200.

There are many decisions of this court holding under a given state of facts that a person is a traveler, and others he is not a traveler. The question practically resolves itself into whether or not the accused is on a real journey. The question of crossing the county line from one county to another, or the state line from this into another state, back and forth, really is not decisive. Of course, the burden is always on an accused to show that he is a traveler under this statute to avoid conviction. There is no question but that he carried the pistol on his person.

In our opinion, the judge below was authorized to find, as he did, that appellant was not a traveler. Hickman v. State, 160 S. W. 382; Stanfield v. State, 34 S. W. 116; Goss v. State, 40 S. W. 725; Harris v. State, 77 S. W. 610; Blackwell v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 476, 31 S. W. 380; Jones v. State, 45 S. W. 596; Darby v. State, 23 Tex. App. 407, 5 S. W. 90.

The judgment will be affirmed.  