
    SALASAR v. STATE.
    (No. 11152.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 16, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <@=1120(8) — Bill complaining of testimony that defendant “shied around the officers,” without statement of circumstances, held insufficient in prosecution for carrying weapon.
    In prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, bill complaining of testimony that defendant “shied around the officers, started to pass them, and looked suspicious,” did not permit of determination of its admissibility, in absence of recital of setting in which the evidence came into the case.
    2. Criminal law <3=1 141 (2) — Absence of error is presumed, unless bill of exceptions makes contrary showing.
    In the absence of a showing to the contrary in the bills of exception, it is presumed on appeal that trial court did not err.
    3. Criminal law <3=1120(8) — Bill complaining of testimony of shooting in section where arrest was made presented nothing for review, in absence of statement connecting defendant, accused of carrying pistol, with testimony.
    In prosecution for unlawfully carrying pistol, complaint, in bill of exception, of testimony that there had been considerable shooting in the section of the city where the arrest was made, did not present any question for review, in absence of showing as to whether defendant was connected with the shooting.
    4. Criminal law <3=1 120(8) — Bill complaining of testimony of officers that they had found pistol on defendant’s person on making arrest did not show illegal search (Pen. Code 1925, art. 487).
    Admission of testimony of arresting officers, complained of in bill of exceptions, to the effect that they found a pistol upon the person of defendant, did not constitute error, in absence of showing in bill that officers were not possessed of legal authority to make search, inasmuch as defendant may be arrested without warrant under Pen. Code 1925, art. 487, for unlawfully carrying a pistol upon information from some reliable person that he is committing that offense.
    5. Arrest <3=63(4) — Statute permitting arrest without warrant for unlawfully carrying pistol • on information from some reliable person held not to violate requirement of probable cause (Pen. Code 1925, art. 487; Const. Bill of Rights, art. I, § 9).
    Pen. Code 1925, art. 487, permitting arrest without warrant of one unlawfully carrying pistol upon information from some reliable person of commission of offense by person charged, does not violate requirement of Const Bill of Rights, art. 1, § 9, demanding probable cause as a predicate for the arrest; Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 727a, not being applicable.
    Appeal from Harris County Court at Law ; Ray Scruggs, Judge.
    Jose Salasar was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    • Fuller & Fuller, of Houston, for appellant. A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is unlawfully carrying a pistol; punishment fixed at a fine of §100.

The appellant was arrested upon one of the streets of Houston and was possessed of a pistol. He introduced no defensive testimony, but relies for a reversal upon three bills of exceptions.

In the first bill complaint is made of testimony to the effect that the appellant “shied around the officers, started to pass them, and looked suspicious.” This testimony may or may not have been admissible, depending upon what preceded and ¿allowed it. In the absence of some recital of the setting in which the evidence came into the case, its admissibility cannot be determined. Touching any of the surrounding facts the bill is silent.

In bill No. 2 the complaint is that there had been recently considerable shooting with pistols in the section of the city' where the arrest was made. That the court did not err is a presumption in the absence of a showing in the bill to the contrary. The bill does not show whether the appellant was connected with the shooting or not; nor does it state facts from which this court can determine that in receiving it the trial court was in error. Pombo v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 599, 279 S. W. 263; Quinn v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 179, 279 S. W. 458; Stanford v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 182, 280 S. W. 798; Murfit v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 617, 281 S. W. 1077; Ard v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 545, 276 S. W. 263.

In bill No. 3 complaint is made of the receipt of the testimony of the arresting officers to the effect that they found a pistol upon the person of the appellant. The remainder of the bill consists merely of the grounds of the objection. Robbins v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 592, 272 S. W. 175; Pahika v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 271 S. W. 899; Vernon’s Tex. C. C. P. 1925, art. 667, p. 364, ‘note 23. The bill contains no statement or certificate of the trial judge that the arrest was illegally made or that the officers were not possessed of the legal authority to make the search. In article 487, P. C. 1925, there is found a special statute permitting the arrest without warrant of one violating the law against unlawfully carrying a pistol upon information from some reliable person that the person charged is committing the offense. Nothing in the bill in question negatives the idea that in making the arrest in the instant case the officers acted within the scope of the statute mentioned. The legality of the article of the statute in question has been asserted by this court in numerous instances. See Jacobs v. State, 28 Tex. App. 79, 12 S. W. 408. The contention that it was offensive to article 1, § 9, of the Bill of Rights, was held untenable by this court in the opinion written by Judge Willson in the case mentioned. A like ruling was announced in the ■opinion by Judge Hurt in Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S. W. 812. The same conclusion has been reached by the court in many cases which are collated in Vernon’s Tex. P. C. 1925, vol. 1, p. 283. In these announcements no conflict is perceived with the recent cases in which the court has discussed the applicability of article 727a, O. C. P. 1925, to the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of article 1, § 9, of the Bill of Rights. In other words, the fact that the officer has personal knowledge or has received specific and credible information that the accused is carrying a pistol in violation of the law complies with the rule of the Constitution demanding “probable cause” as a predicate for the arrest. The statute in question (article 487, supra) is conceived to be in line with the decisions of this court in Battle v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 568, 290 S. W. 762; Odenthal v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 290 S. W. 743; and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 791.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

The points presented in the motion were each carefully considered when this case was before us originally, and no new.authorities are cited; nor is our attention called to any fact which was not considered fully upon the former presentation. We are not led to change our views as expressed in the opinion.

The motion will be overruled. 
      <gxoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     