88 Ala. 168 | Ala. | 1889
There is no positive testimony in this case-that defendant carried a pistol concealed about his person.The testimony was by a single witness, who testified, “that the defendant, at the time, had on a military, close-fitting coat; that the pistol was carried in an inside, breast pocket;
However strong and convincing the circumstances may have been, they were not of the class which authorized the general charge. An inference to be drawn was a necessary element in the constitution of the offense — namely, that the visible impression on the clothing was made by a pistol; and this inference the jury alone was competent to draw.' 1 Brick. Dig. 335, § 4; 3 Brick. Dig. 110, §§ 56 et seq.; Rabbitte v. Orr, 83 Ala. 185. Is it not logically incontrovertible, that if the impression made on the coat was so clear and palpable that a witness fifteen feet away could readily and unmistakably affirm as fact that it was made by a pistol, then the pistol was not concealed, and the statute was not violated. We think, however, that this case does not fall within such principle. The pistol, if it was a pistol, was concealed, covered up, hidden from sight. What we do decide is, that it was for the jury to draw the inference, whether or not it was a pistol.
Reversed and remanded.