
    LAWLESS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 14, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1043*) — Appeal — Evidence-Review.
    An objection that tbe evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction presents for review on appeal only tbe question whether there is any evidence in the record which will justify the verdict.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2654, 2655; Dec. Dig. § 1043.*]
    2. Weapons (§ 17*) — Carrying a Pistol — Evidence.
    In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, evidence held to sustain a conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 20, 22-33; Dee. Dig. § 17.*]
    Appeal from Panola County Court; W. R. Anderson, Judge.
    Donnie Lawless was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol. He admits having tbe pistol on the occasion charged, but bis defense is that tbe pistol bad no cylinder and could not be shot. He supports tbis by tbe testimony of several witnesses who testify to seeing him at several different places with a pistol with no cylinder in it. He was tried before tbe court, having waived a jury. Tbe question before us is, is there any testimony in tbe record which would justify tbe verdict, not what we would have found bad we been tbe trial court? The only assignment of error is tbe insufficiency of tbe testimony to sustain tbe verdict. George Yates testified: “I know the defendant, Donnie Lawless; have known him several years. I saw tbe defendant in tbe town of Deberry on tbe 6th day of July, 1913. He and Clayton Lawless drove up in a buggy and stopped in front of my store. I went out to tbe buggy and while standing near tbe buggy I saw tbe defendant, Donnie Lawless, reach down in the foot of tbe buggy, took a pistol from a scabbard and unloaded it, extracting shells therefrom. It was a blue pistol, like tbe one you have there.” On cross-examination be testified that be knew there was a cylinder in tbe pistol when be saw it. Tbis would authorize tbe court to find tbe verdict be did find. Tbe trial court saw and beard tbe witnesses, and be is more capable of passing on tbe credit to be given tbe testimony of each of them than we are at tbis distance.

The judgment is affirmed.  