Hickman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hickman v. State

160 S.W. 382, 71 Tex. Crim. 483, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 493

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 22, 1913

DocketNo. 2670.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 160 S.W. 382 (Hickman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hickman v. State, 160 S.W. 382, 71 Tex. Crim. 483, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 493 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant-was convicted of the offense of carrying a pistol, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

Appellant contends that the court committed material error in permitting the State’s witness to testify, in addition to testifying to the fact that appellant had a pistol, that he took out the pistol and fired same at -a mark. The objection made was that defendant was not charged with rudely displaying a pistol, and the evidence was calculated to inflame the minds of the jury. As the record discloses that the jury gave appellant the minimum punishment, this bill presents no error.

The only other ground in the motion complains of the action of the court in refusing to give two special charges requested. The first requested a peremptory instruction of not guilty, and the other charge not given is that if appellant had begun his journey from Miami to Mobeetie to find him not guilty. The record discloses that appellant was a merchant at Miami, and he says, “I went out that day to see some of the people who were owing me at that time, to fyy and see if we could not make some kind of a settlement of their accounts.” It is thus disclosed *484 that appellant was going to see'his customers, who lived within trading distances of Miami, and if this is true, this would not constitute him a traveler within the meaning of our Code.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant-was convicted of the offense of carrying a pistol, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

Appellant contends that the court committed material error in permitting the State’s witness to testify, in addition to testifying to the fact that appellant had a pistol, that he took out the pistol and fired same at -a mark. The objection made was that defendant was not charged with rudely displaying a pistol, and the evidence was calculated to inflame the minds of the jury. As the record discloses that the jury gave appellant the minimum punishment, this bill presents no error.

The only other ground in the motion complains of the action of the court in refusing to give two special charges requested. The first requested a peremptory instruction of not guilty, and the other charge not given is that if appellant had begun his journey from Miami to Mobeetie to find him not guilty. The record discloses that appellant was a merchant at Miami, and he says, “I went out that day to see some of the people who were owing me at that time, to fyy and see if we could not make some kind of a settlement of their accounts.” It is thus disclosed *484 that appellant was going to see'his customers, who lived within trading distances of Miami, and if this is true, this would not constitute him a traveler within the meaning of our Code.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.W. 382, 71 Tex. Crim. 483, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack