
    Alsop v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Carrying Concealed Weapons.
    
    1. Charge as to evidence for consideration of jury. — Under an indictment for carrying- concealed weapons (Code, § 4109), the witnesses for the prosecution testifying that they saw the defendant with a pistol in his hand, presenting it at another person, but did not see bow or whence he procured it, although they had been working with him for several hours; while the defendant himself stated to the jury that it was placed on a car which he was using, by a friend, who informed him of threats made by the person with whom he had the difficulty, and was picked up from the car at the moment; a charge requested, asserting that the jury, 1 ‘ in determining whether the defendant got the pistol from his person or elsewhere, can take into consideration his surroundings,” is correct, and its refusal is error.
    From the Circuit Court of Jefferson.
    Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott,
    
      The defendant in this case, being on trial under an indictment which charged him with carrying a pistol concealed about his person, reserved a bill of exceptions as follows: “ The State introduced evidence which tended to show that, within twelve months before the finding of the indictment, and in said county, the defendant was seen by the witnesses with a pistol in his hand, which he presented at a negro with whom he had a difficulty at the time; that none of them saw where the ¡fistol came from, and they did not know whether the defendant had taken it from about his person or not; that defendant was then working at the Alice Furnace, where the witnesses were also working ; that they had been around and about him for several hours, and had talked with him, but had seen no pistol about him up to the time it was presented and fired ; that this was at night, but the light was bright enough’ for them to see how to carry on their work, and to see an iron rod or pistol several feet; that defendant had on no coat, but wore a short jacket, which reached no lower than his waist, and had on his pants ; that several negroes, who were witnesses, were around and about him, and there was a trestle also by him, and near the parties quarreling, before and up to the time the pistol was fired ; that the pistol, when the witnesses first saw it, was in the hand of the defendant, presented at a negro ; and that the defendant was standing near his cab, which was loaded with ore, and which was about waist high. The defendant said, in his statement to the jury, that he had the pistol lying on his cab, and picked it up from his cab, and did not have it about his person ; and that a man came along by where he was at work, and told him a certain negro was making threats against him, and put the pistol on his cab for him. This being, in substance, all the testimony in the case, and also the substance of the defendant’s statement, the defendant asked the court, in writing, to instruct the jury as follows : ‘ The jury can take into consideration the surroundings of the defendant, in determining whether he got the pistol from his person or elsewhere.’ The court refused to give this charge, and the defendant excepted to its refusal.”
    The name of the appellant’s counsel, if any appeared in this court, is nowhere shown by the record or docket.
    T. N. McClellan, Attorney-General, for the State.
   STONE, O. J.

In testing the credibility of narrations of fact, it is, as a rule, permissible to consider the surroundings, or attendant circumstances. Especially is this the case, when, as on the present trial, there was no positive testimony of the main fact, but it was left to be inferred from proof of other facts. The charge asked should have been given. — Sackett, Instruction to Juries, 474-5.

[Reversed and remanded. Let the defendant remain in custody, until discharged by due course of law.  