
    HODGE v. STATE.
    (No. 9458.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 11, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1925.)
    Weapons <&wkey;l I (i/2) — That accused was on premises of employer while carrying pistol held not to exempt him from application of statute.
    That accused, while carrying pistol, was on the premises of employer, on which he lived in one of several houses furnished to employés, held not 'to exempt him from application of statute prohibiting unlawful carrying, where he was 400 feet from the house in which he lived, and had no control of the property of Ms employer, and performed no duty relative to his employment at the time.
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court at Law; C. N. Ellis, Judge.
    Jesse Hodge was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    James A. Harrison, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   HAWKINS J.

Appellant is under conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $100. No complaint is made at any proceeding during the trial. The only question raised is the sufficiency of the evidence.

Appellant was working for the Kirby Lumber Company. They had provided for employés a number of houses in what is known as the “quarters.” Appellant was arrested about S :30 at night about 50 feet from a house in which he had formerly lived. A few days before he had moved to another house some 400 feet from the place where the arrest occurred. Officers discovered- appellant in the act of putting a jug of whisky down near a stump, and he was found to have a pistol at the time. He claimed to have been going to the house where he formerly lived to get some medicine to mix with the whisky.

There is no brief on file for appellant, but his contention,seems to be that, as he was upon premises belonging to the Kirby Lumber Company, for whom he worked, he would have a legal right to carry a pistol under the exemption which permits one to be carried on a person’s own premises. The facts do not call for the application of such exemption. He had no control of the property belonging to the Kirby Lumber Company, save the one house in which he lived. He was performing no duty relative to his employment with the company at the time he carried the pistol. To uphold the contention made by appellant would permit him to roam at will, armed, over the entire “quarters” provided by the lumber company for their employés.

Believing the evidence supports the verdict, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

In his application for rehearing appellant cites the case of Rodgers v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 421, 213 S. W. 637, which he claims supports the contention that, while upon premises belonging to the company for whom he worked, he was upon his-own premises, and therefore should not be held guilty of violating the law for unlawfully carrying a pistol. We do not regard Rodgers’ Case, supra, as at all in conflict with our former opinion in the present case. In that case appellant was found with a pistol within 40 or 50 feet of the house in which he actually lived, and claimed to have just left the house with the pistol on account of hearing some noise or disturbance. Tbe facts are entirely different from tho^e presented in tbe present record. Appellant bad moved from tbe bouse near wbicb be was found with tbe pistol and was some distance from tbe bouse into wbicb be bad recently moved. To extend tbe bolding in Rodgers’ Case to tbe present facts would permit all employes of tbe Kirby Hum-ber Company to carry arms in any part of tbe “quarters” provided by sucb company for tbeir emplbyés. We do not conceive tbis to ■be tbe law.

Tbe motion for rebearing is overruled. 
      @=»For other oases see same topic and KEYtNTJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     