
    OWENS v. STATE.
    (No. 11154.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 16, 1927.
    1. Criminal law <@=?1120(8) — Bills of exception as to admission of evidence illegally obtained, but failing’ to negative possible legality, held not to disclose error.
    Where defendant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, bills of exception to admission of testimony of officers relative to search of defendant’s car, as being inhibited by Code Cr. Proe. 1925, art. 727a, in that the officers had no search warrant and that search was without authority, held not to disclose error, possession of prior information by officers, whereby they might arrest without warrant under Pen. Code 1925, art. 487, not being negatived, and presumption being that rulings on evidence are correct unless bill shows otherwise.
    2. Criminal law <@=3554 — Undisputed testimony by defendant that he was carrying pistol lawfully held not to establish innocence.
    Where defendant was charged with unlawfully carrying pistol, his undisputed testimony that he was lawfully carrying it did not establish his innocence, since, under the statute, weight and credibility of his testimony was for jury.
    Appeal from Harris County Court at Daw; Ben F. Wilson, Judge.
    Earl Owens was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Warren P. Castle, of Houston, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Unlawfully carrying a pistol is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for a period of 60 days.

A pistol was discovered by officers in the rear end of a Ford automobile which was in possession of the appellant. The automobile was parked in front of a colored dance hall on a certain street in the city of Houston. Appellant testified and justified his possession of the pistol upon the ground that he had won two' pistols, one on his person and one in his car, and was carrying them to his home by the most direct route and merely stopped fór a moment or two at the place where the arrest was made.

In bill of exceptions No. 1, the facts set ont disclose that officers were examining the license plates on the automobiles around the dance hall, and “flashed the light in the direction of the defendant, who was seated under the steering wheel of his car; that as the light played on him, he made a quick movement, and they decided to search to see if they could find anything.” Objection to this testimony was urged upon the ground that it was illegal in that the search was without authority, and that therefore the testimony was inhibited by article 727a, C. 0. P. 1925.

Bill No. 2 recites substantially the same facts as Bill No. 1, with the additional statement that the arresting officers had no search warrant. Neither of these bills negatives the possession by the officers of information prior to the arrest that appellant was unlawfully carrying a pistol. With reference to this particular offense there is a special statute embraced in article 487, P. O. 1925, giving a peace officer the authority and making it his duty to arrest one if the officer has knowledge or credible information to the effect that the person in question is unlawfully carrying a pistol. In testing the admissibility of evidence, the presumption is that the ruling of the trial court in receiving the testimony was proper, unless the bill shows the contrary. The silence of the bill on the knowledge or information possessed by the officers renders the bill incomplete and insufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment.

The appellant takes the position that, he having testified that he was lawfully carrying a pistol and the evidence being undisputed, his innocence was established. He being an interested witness, whether his testimony was true was a matter for determination by the jury. The statute makes the jury in a criminal case the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the .weight to be given to their testimony. The precedents are against the appellant’s contention. See Hawkins v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 270 S. W. 1025.

Finding no matter presented for review warranting a reversal, the judgment is affirmed. 
      <@=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes
     