Cite as State v. Smith, 157 Ind. 241 (1901)

                      MAY TERM, 1901 - Vol. 157            241
                            State v. Smith


                         THE STATE v. SMITH. 

                  [No.19,625. Filed October 9, 1901.]

Weapons.-Travelers.-Criminal Law.--One going from his home by rail
a distance of fifteen miles in an adjoining county to attend a 
political convention is not a traveler within the meaning of
section 2069 Burns 1901, entitling him to carry concealed weapons.
To come  within the exception of the statute the travel must be
without the  ordinary habits, business, or duties of the person,
and at least such a distance from his home as takes him beyond the
circle of his acquaintances, among strangers, with whose habits,
conduct, and  character he is not acquainted.

      From Sullivan Circuit Court; O. B. Harris, Judge.

      Appellee Herb Smith was tried on the charge of carrying
concealed weapons and acquitted.  Appeal by State.  Appeal
sustained.


242                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA,            

                      State v. Smith.

      W. L. Taylor, Attorney-General, Merrill Moores, C. C. Hadley,
E. W. Mclntosh and W. H. Bridwell, for State.

      MONKS, C. J.--Appellee was tried and acquitted of the offense
of carrying concealed weapons. This appeal was taken under 98 of
the act of 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 586), being section 1337h Burns
1901, and requires this court to determine the proper construction
of section 2069 Burns 1901, section 1985 R. S. 1881 and Horner
1897.

      The question presented is whether or not appellant, who went
from his home in Sullivan, Indiana, by rail, to Linton, in an
adjoining county, a distance of fifteen miles, to attend a
political meeting, having no other business, and returned from the
meeting to his home, was a traveler within the meaning of section
2069 (1985), supra. If he was a traveler his case must be affirmed;
if he was not the appeal must be sustained.

      The evil sought to be remedied by said section was the
insecurity of life caused by the pernicious habit of carrying
concealed weapons, and the consequent demoralization of society.
The word "traveler" when used in a broad sense designates one who
travels in any way, distance not being material. It is clear that
the legislature did not use the word in this sense, for such
signification mould destroy the very purpose for which the section
was enacted, by licensing rather than suppressing the practice of
carrying concealed weapons. It is manifest, therefore, that the
word was employed in a more limited sense and was intended to
designate a person traveling at least such a distance as takes him
among strangers, with whose habits, conduct, and character he is
not acquainted, where unknown dangers may exist, from which there
may be a necessity to protect himself by preparing for a defense
against an attack.

      It follows that to come within the exemption of said section
the travel must be without he ordinary habits, business, or duties
of the person and at least to such distance from his home as takes
him beyond the circle of his general

                      MAY TERM, 1901-Vol. 157.                   243
                      Coddington v. Canaday.

acquaintances, among strangers with whose habits, conduct, and
character he is not acquainted. Bishop on Stat. Crimes section
788a; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Rawles rev. ed.), p. 1134; 5 Am. &
Eng. Ency. of Law (2nd ed.) 743; Gholson v. State, 53 Ala. 519, 25
Am. Rep. 652, and cases cited; McGuirk v. State, 64 Miss. 209, 1
South. 103; Hathcote v. State, 55 Ark. 181, 183-155, 17 S. W. 721;
Davis v. State, 45 Ark. 359. To the extent that Burst v. State, 80
Ind. 133 and Lott v. State, 122 Ind. 393, may be deemed to hold a
contrary doctrine, they are disapproved.

      It is therefore evident that appellant was not a traveler
within the meaning of said section. Appeal sustained.