
    CHRISTOPHERSON v. STATE.
    (No. 3869.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 22, 1915.)
    Breach oe the Peace &wkey;>8 — Evidence—Sufficiency.
    Evidence that defendant; while walking down a public road 60 yards from a residence, fired a gun in a direction opposite to the residence, with the purpose of signaling one whom he was to meet at that point, in the absence of any indication of ill will between him and the person residing there, or intention on defendant’s part to disturb the peace, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for disturbing the peace by shooting off a gun.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Breach of the Peace, Cent. Dig. § 6; Dec. Dig. <§=^8.]
    Appeal from Newton County Court; W. E. Gray, Judge.
    Willie Christopherson was convicted of disturbing the peace by shooting a gun near a private residence and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted under a charge of disturbing the peace by shooting off his gun near a private residence. There is very little conflict, if any, in the testimony. Dougherty, the owner of the house whose peace is said to have been disturbed, testified he was sitting in one of the rooms of his house and heard the discharge of a gun; he looked out and saw the defendant 47 steps from his residence with a gun; that defendant fired the gun off in the opposite direction from the house across a lake. His son testified that appellant fired the gun. He placed the distance at 60 yards. Another witness testified he saw appellant fire the shot. The gun it seems was a shotgun. All of them testified that appellant was going down the road and had passed Dougherty’s house some distance when he fired the gun and in the opposite direction from the house, across a lake. If there was any disturbance it was by reason of the gun being fired within 45 or 60 yards of the house and in the opposite direction of the house. There is nothing to indicate any ill will between the parties, or conduct on the part of appellant that it was for tile purpose of disturbing the peace. The case rests on the simple fact that he discharged his gun as stated. Appellant introduced one witness named. Hamilton, who testified: That the night before this occurrence he and appellant had been talking about going to Louisiana. To discuss this trip they agreed to meet at this lake to determine that matter. It was understood if appellant went to the lake and fired his gun, it was a signal for the meeting. That he, upon hearing the gun, went to the lake and met appellant. They talked about the matter, and remained together a while, separating, going their respective ways. This is the ease. We are not satisfied appellant should have been convicted under this testimony, and for this reason the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded. 
      <S=x>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     