WEAPONS WITNESSES.

WEAPONS.

1. Carrying concealed weapons. Evidence. Threats.

It is not necessary, in order that one who has been threatened with
an attack may be justified in carrying a concealed weapon, that he
shall anticipate the attack at a particular time or place.

v. State, 544.

2. Same.

Harvey

Nor is it necessary for one who has been threatened and in good
faith anticipates an attack to disarm himself, whenever he is
temporarily so situated that for the time being he is in no im-
mediate danger of an attack.

3. Deadly weapons.

tion.

Ib.

Pocket knife. Code 1906, section 1110. Constitu-

A pocket knife is a deadly weapon under the provisions of Code
1906, section 1110, making it a criminal offense to exhibit a deadly
weapon in a rude, angry or threatening manner in the presence
of three or more witnesses. State v. Ware, 634.

WILLS.

1. Construction. Testator's intent.

A will should be so constructed as to carry out the intent of the
party making it. L'Hote v. Roca, 121.

A will made by a resident of Louisiana, conveying the "disposable
portion of all" the property that she owned at the time of her
death, conveys the whole of her property situated in the state
of Mississippi; though under the laws of Louisiana her "dis-
posable property" was only one-third of her estate, the laws of
Mississippi controlling as to the property located in this state. Ib.

WITNESSES.

1. Criminal law. Objections to testimony.

It is too late to make an objection for the first time on a motion
for a new trial, that a witness in a criminal prosecution was not
of sufficient intelligence to appreciate the obligations of an oath.
Smith v. State, 330.

2. Former conviction. Explanation.

Where an accused while being exmined as a witness in his own
behalf testified that he had been convicted of another crime, it

WITNESSES.

WITNESSES-Continued.

was not error to refuse to allow him to explain his former con-
viction, as this would place upon the jury the burden of retrying
an issue already adjudicated. Ib.

3. Criminal law. Appeal. Bill of exceptions. New trial. Error.
Where a criminal case was called for trial and defendant announced
that he was not ready on account of the absence of witnesses
who had been duly summoned, and at the suggestion of the judge
the trial was proceeded with, upon the understanding that the
witness would be brought into court in time to testify, and the
record nowhere discloses what the witness would have testified to,
so that the supreme court may judge of the materiality thereof
and no bill of exceptions discloses that these witnesses were not
present while the defendant was introducing his witnesses; nor
that defendant interposed any objection to proceeding with the
trial in their absence, such facts cannot be shown on a motion for
a new trial, as this is not the manner in which to reserve a point
of this character. Brumfield v. State, 610.

4. Objections. Bill of exceptions.

Where a defendant rested his case without interposing any objec-
tion to continuing the case on account of his absent witness or
at least the bill of exceptions does not disclose such an objection,
he cannot avail himself of this objection in the supreme court
on appeal. Ib.

5. Same.

Where the record does not disclose what the testimony of absent
witnesses would have been, the supreme court will not reverse
on account of the absence of such witness, unless it appears from
the record that the testimony was material and there is no presump-
tion in the absence of a showing in the record that such testimony
was material. Ib.

6. Misconduct of district attorney.

Cross-examination of accused.

It was improper for the district attorney on cross-examination
of accused on trial for forgery to ask him whether it was not a
fact that he was charged in the indictment here of forgery, and
uttering forged deeds and other county warrants and that you
were run out of the parish in which you were born and raised on
account of land over there. Saucier v. State, 647.

WITNESSES.

WITNESSES-Continued.

7. Same.

Where the guilt of the defendant is clearly established and the jury
refused to accept the explanation of the accused and the court
gave proper instructions and the trial was otherwise fairly con-
ducted, the court will not reverse the case for improper questions
by the district attorney. Saucier v. State, 647.