
    WELCH v. STATE.
    (No. 8229.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 7, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied June 18, 1924.)
    1. Weapons &wkey;>! I (2) — Accused carrying pis-to! while driving automobile held not exempt from prosecution as a traveler.
    Accused who carried a pistol in bis automobile in violation of Pen. Code 1911, art. 475, held not exempt from prosecution as a traveler within article 476.
    2. Weapons <&wkey; 10 — Pistol held on or “about” the person.
    A pistol in a band bag placed between the seats on tbe floor of automobile was on or about tbe driver’s person in violation of Pen. Code 1911, art. 475; “about” meaning near by, close at band, convenient of access, and within such distance of tbe party so having it as that such party could, without materially changing his position, get his hand on it.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, About.]
    Appeal from District Court, Real County; T. M. Milam, Special Judge.
    Alfred Welch was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. Old, of Uvalde, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for tbe State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol. Punishment is a fine of $100.

Appellant was arrested while driving a Ford touring car on the publie road. A pis-t tol scabbard was on his belt, but tbe pistol was in a grip or handbag setting on tbe floor of tbe car between tbe front and back seat. Appellant’s evidence was that he bad been carrying tbe pistol in tbe scabbard on bis own premises for tbe purpose of shooting wolves if be bad the opportunity, and. that before be left bis own property be removed the pistol from tbe bolster, placed it in tbe handbag, and put tbe bag where it was found by tbe officers; that tbe pistol bad not been taken out of the handbag during tbe day and a half be bad been away.from bis ranch.

Tbe case was tried before the judge without tbe aid of a jury. The court was authorized in not accepting tbe contention that appellant was exempt as being a “traveler.” Tbe point is made that tbe pistol, being in tbe handbag on tbe floor of tbe ear between tbe seats, was not “about” tbe person in contemplation of tbe statute prohibiting tbe carrying of arms “on or about the person” (article 475, P. C.), and in support of this proposition reliance is bad upon George v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 29 S. W. 386; Cathey v. State, 23 Tex, Cr. R. 492, 5 S. W. 137; Hardy v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R, 511, 40 S. W. 299; Thompson v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 146, 86 S. W. 1033. As opposed to these may be cited Garrett v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 25 S. W. 285; Hill v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 619, 100 S. W. 384; Leonard v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 119 S. W. 98; Wagner v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 188 S. W. 1001; Mayfield v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 103, 170 S. W. 308; Roberson v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 587, 228 S. W. 236; Emerson v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 354, 190 S. W. 485. Tbe following meaning of the word “about” as used in tbe statute was adopted from the state’s brief with approval in Wagner’s Case, supra, and again indorsed in Emerson’s Case, supra:

“The Legislature must have meant something when it used the words ‘or about the person,’ and on principle using the word ‘about’ in its ordinary meaning, taking into consideration tbe context and subject-matter relative to which it is employed, the word, not being specially defined, must, as we believe, be held to mean, within the pistol statute, near by, close at hand, convenient of access, and within such distance of the party so having it as that such party could without materially changing his position get his hand on it; otherwise every person having a vehicle would bé authorized to keep" prohibited weapons in his vehicle and within reach of his hand, ready for action. * * * »

It is not apparent wby a pistol in a band bag situated as was tbe one in tbe present case is not even more accessible than would be one under tbe seat or cushion of a buggy. Hill v. State; Garrett v. State; Leonard v. State; Mayfield v. State, supra.

In our opinion tbe facts justified tbe court in tbe judgment rendered, and an affirmance is ordered. , 
      <§xwFor other eases see same topic and'KBY-NUMBISR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     