
    DODARO v. STATE.
    (No. 6282.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 25, 1921.)
    t. Indictment and information 137(1) — Information not subject to quashal because mis-designating court.
    Information for unlawfully carrying a pistol presented in the “county court at law of Wichita county” was not subject to quashal on the ground the court was designated by act of the Legislature as the “court of Wichita county at law.”
    2. Weapons <©=» 17(6) — Court did not err in refusing to instruct where issue not raised.
    In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct that defendant could not be guilty if he carried the pistol from his home to his place of business, etc., when it was not carried habitually between such places, where the issue was not raised as presented in the requested charge.
    3. Criminal law <®=j829( 14) — Instruction in prosecution for carrying pistol covered proper portion of requested charge.
    In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, where the court directed the jury not to consider the testimony of the state’s witnesses as to what they thought with reference to the intentions of defendant on occasions when he placed the pistol against the side or breast of a witness, this sufficiently covered the proper portion of defendant’s requested charge that the jury should not regard testimony of state’s witnesses that defendant placed the pistol against the side or breast of one of them, and what he said in that connection, or regard the testimony of the witnesses as to what they thought of his intentions.
    4. Weapons <®=»I7(3) — Evidence defendant placed pistol against side of witness, and what he said, admissible.
    In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, evidence that defendant placed the pistol against the side or breast of one oí the state’s witnesses, and what he said in such connection, was admissible.
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; Guy Rogers, Judge.
    .Pete Dodaro was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
    R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction was for unlawfully carrying a pistol. Punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The record shows the information in the case to have been presented in the county court at law,of Wichita county. Appellant filed a motion to quash because there is no such court as designated in Wichita county, but that the court was designated by the act of the Legislature as the court of Wichita county at law. The question raised has been decided ¿gainst appellant in the case of Pelz v. State, 230 S. W. 154, decided April 13, 1921, and not yet [officially] reported.

Appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that appellant would not be guilty if he carried the pistol from his home to his place of business, or from his place of business to his home, when same was not carried habitually between said places. The charge in question would have been a pertinent one under a correct state of facts, but an examination of the statement of facts in this case leads us to the conclusion that the issue was not raised as presented in the requested charge, and therefore the court was not in error in refusing to give the same.

Another charge requested by the appellant was to the effect that the jury be instructed not to regard the testimony of the state’s witnesses that defendant placed a pistol against the side or breast of one of the witnesses, and what he said in that connection, and also to exclude from their consideration the testimony of the witnesses as to what they thought the intentions of appellant were at that time. We find in the court’s main charge an instruction directing the jury not to consider the testimony of the state’s witnesses as to what they thought with reference to the intentions of defendant on the occasion in question. This sufficiently covered that portion of the requested charge which it was proper for the court to give, and it was not error to decline to give that portion which seeks to have the jury disregard the actions of the defendant with the pistol, and what he said at the time.

It is not necessary to state the evidence in the case at length, hut it was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and, finding no errors in the record, the judgment is affirmed. 
      (fc^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     