
    CHARLIE HOLDEN v. STATE.
    No. A-8806.
    March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing Denied April 19, 1935.
    (47 Pac. [2d] 223.)
    Wm. H. Lewis, for plaintiff in error.
    J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and J. H. Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, for convenience hereinafter referred to- as the defendant, was by information jointly charged with W. L. Cummings and Mrs. Charlie Holden; was tried separately, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50.00 and to be imprisoned in tbe county jail for 30 days.

Tbe testimony shows in substance that tbe defendant and bis wife and W. L. Cummings were driving in tbe northeast part of tbe city of Oklahoma City. The officers George Kerr and Don Stone were also driving in tbe northeast part of tbe city. Tbe officers saw defendant driving along tbe street and followed him and forced him into tbe curb, told him to get out of bis car, and, after they bad gotten tbe defendant out of tbe car, they looked in the back seat of the car and found two pistols and one gun. In order to justify their conduct of stopping tbe defendant’s car on tbe street, the officers testify they arrested him on suspicion of bis having been connected with a bank robbery, and used that as a justification for stopping tbe defendant and searching his car without a warrant for bis arrest or to search bis car. The statement of tbe officers as to why they stopped him and put him under arrest is uncontradicted. However, it does not seem reasonable, and seems to be an afterthought of tbe officers when they considered they bad acted without authority.

Tbe defendant admits be bad tbe guns, and stated be bad started to tbe farm near Shawnee and bad put tbe guns in tbe car to take them down there.

Several questions have been raised by tbe defendant in bis assignment of errors and argued at length. Some of tbe questions argued have merit, but, in tbe view we take of this record, it is not necessary to set out at length tbe questions argued and submitted. Tbe evidence in tbe case shows a technical violation by tbe defendant of unlawfully carrying weapons. Considering all tbe circumstances in tbe case, we bold that tbe evidence is sufficient to sustain a violation of tbe statute (St. 1931, § 2584), ■but we bold the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the maximum punishment' which was imposed on the defendant. Under the authority given this court by the statute (St. 1931, §3204), we believe that this judgment should be modified from a fine of $50.00 and 30 days in jail to a fine of $50.00, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, J., concurs. EDWARDS, J., not participating.  