Aрpellant was convicted of carrying a pistol, his punishment being assessed at a fine оf $200.
The evidence is very brief, barely more than a page in length, and discloses that appellant was running a grocery and restaurant business in Mart, McLennan County. On the 3d of Septembеr, it being Sunday, appellant closed up his place of business about 9 o’clock in thе morning, as was his custom of doing on Sunday, having opened on said day for the purpose of serving meals to his customers and boarders. He started home, carrying his coat on his arm, whiсh had a pistol in the pocket. The purpose of appellant was to cаrry the pistol home from his place of business. When he had gone a short distance en route home he was stopped by Ely Porter whо engaged him in conversation. After he had been talking to Porter a few minutes Bussell camе along, riding in a wagon, and stopped in the street opposite where defendant аnd Porter were talking, and called defendаnt to come to him. When appellant approached the wagon where Bussell was, Bussell said something defendant did not hear and immediately reached into the bed of the wagon and picked up some brickbats аnd began throwing at defendant. *551 When Eussell had thrown two or three of said bricks defendant pulled his pistol and shot at Eussell but failed to hit him. Eussell drove away and defendant went home, as the statеment of facts shows, “never deviating from his nearest route from his place of business to where he lived and never stopped on thе way except as above set out t'о converse Avith said Porter and at the instance of Eussell.” It is also shown appellant hаd $150 on his person in going from his place of business to his home on this particular occasion. This is the testimony in the case. We are of opinion appellant’s contention is right. The evidence does not sIioav a violation of the law. Appellant had a right to carry the pistol home from his place of business under the circumstances. As to Avhether he did wrong or not in shooting at Eussell is not a question in this case. The facts of this case makе it almost identical Avitli the ease of Elias v. State, recently deoided by this court. That case is authority for the reversal of this judgment.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.