Hill v. State

100 S.W. 684, 50 Tex. Crim. 619, 1907 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 30
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 6, 1907
DocketNo. 3673.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 100 S.W. 684 (Hill 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
Hill v. State, 100 S.W. 684, 50 Tex. Crim. 619, 1907 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 30 (Tex. 1907).

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

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

The evidence in this case shows appellant, in company with a woman, left the town of Rockwall in Rockwall County, and went to church some six or seven miles away. At the time he left home he had a pistol under the buggy seat where, appellant insists, it remained all the while. The State’s evidence shows that he stopped on the way to the church, got out of the buggy, secured the pistol, and at the point of the pistol forced another party to desist who was engaged in a difficulty with his, the other party’s wife. In the case of Garrett v. State, 25 S. W. Rep., 285, Judge Hurt, delivering the opinion of the court, held that these facts constitute the carrying of a pistol on or about his person as inhibited by the statute. Many of the questions raised by appellant suggested to the court to charge the jury that these facts *620 do not constitute a violation of the law. It follows, therefore, that the court did not err in refusing said charges.

Appellant- also complains- that the court permitted the prosecuting attorney to discuss the above cited ease to the jury. This is a matter left to the sound discretion of the, court. We see, in this instance, no abuse of that discretion. Finding no error in this record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Brian Grandberry
2018 WI 29 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018)
Courtney v. State
424 S.W.2d 440 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)
State v. Brunson
111 So. 321 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Paulk v. State
261 S.W. 779 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Welch v. State
262 S.W. 485 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Emerson v. State
190 S.W.2d 485 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Wagner v. State
188 S.W.2d 1001 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Mayfield v. State
170 S.W. 308 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
De Friend v. State
153 S.W. 881 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Williams v. State
125 S.W. 42 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 S.W. 684, 50 Tex. Crim. 619, 1907 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-texcrimapp-1907.