
    BOWLES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 22, 1912.)
    Weapons (§ 13) — Carrying Weapons.
    One does not violate the law against carrying a pistol, where he merely carries it from his place of business to his home, having on his person a considerable sum of money, not deviating from his nearest route, and stopping only for a moment’s conversation, though he shoots at one assaulting him.
    [Ed. Not1'. — For other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 16, 17; Dec. Dig. § 13.]
    Appeal from McLennan County Court; Tom L. McCullough, Judge.
    Willis Bowles appeals from a conviction.
    Reversed and remanded. (
    W. J. Hannah, R. W. Cowan, and Joe W. Taylor, all of Waco, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $200.

The evidence is very brief, barely more than a page in length, and discloses that appellant was running a grocery and restaurant business in Mart, McLennan county. On tbe 3d of September, it being Sunday, appellant closed up bis place of business about 9 o’clock in tbe morning, as was bis custom of doing on Sunday, having opened on said day for tbe purpose of serving meals to bis customers and boarders. He started borne, carrying bis coat on bis arm, wbicb bad a pistol in tbe pocket. Tbe purpose of appellant was to carry tbe pistol borne from bis place of business. When be bad gone a short distance en route borne, he was stopped by Ely Porter, who engaged him in conversation. After be bad been talking to Porter a few minutes, Russell came along, riding in a wagon, and stopped in tbe street opposite where defendant and Porter were talking, and called defendant to come to him. When appellant approached tbe wagon where Russell was, Russell said something defendant did not hear, and immediately reached into the bed of tbe wagon and picked up some brick bats and began throwing at defendant. When Russell bad thrown two or three of said bricks, defendant pulled his pistol and shot at Russell, but failed to bit him. Russell drove away, and defendant went home, as tbe statement of facts shows, “never deviating from bis nearest route from bis place of business to where he lived, and never stopping on tbe way, except as above set out, to converse with said Porter and at the instance of Russell.” It is also shown appellant bad $150 on bis person in going from bis place of business to bis home on this particular occasion. This is tbe testimony in tbe case.

We are of opinion appellant’s contention is right. Tbe evidence does not show a violation of tbe law. Appellant bad a right to carry tbe pistol home from his place of business under the circumstances. As to whether he did wrong or not in shooting at Russell is not a question in this case. Tbe facts of this ease make it almost identical with the case of Ellias v. State, 144 S. W. 1139, recently decided by this court. That case is authority for tbe reversal of this judgment.

Tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause is remanded.  