Roberts v. State

<p>1. —Carrying Pistol — Recognizance—Misdemeanor—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from unlawfully carrying a pistol, the recognizance failed to recite that the appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor but simply stated that he was convicted for carrying a pistol, the same was insufficient; but inasmuch as the appellant filed a new recognizance in accordance with law, the appeal is reinstated.</p> <p>2. —Same—Charge of Court — Repairing Pistol.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the evidence showed that the defendant went to a certain house to get his pistol and claimed that he was carrying it to the repair shop, and that thereafter he turned aside from his journey and went to a private residence and exhibited his pistol, and the court submitted this issue in a proper charge to the jury, there was no error in refusing a similar requested instruction, and the conviction will not be disturbed.</p> <p>3. —Same—Argument of Counsel — Response to Defendant’s Counsel.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the bill of exceptions as accepted by the appellant showed that the remarks of the State’s counsel were in reply to appellant’s suggestion that the State had not brought witnesses to impeach his character, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>4. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the evidence showed that the alleged pistol was out of repair and defendant was taking it to a blacksmith for repair, which he had a right to do,' but violated the law by entering the private premises of other people and there displaying his pistol, the conviction was sustained. "</p>