Appellant was convicted of carrying a slung-shot and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

The prosecuting witness, Cunningham, testified in substance, that he saw 7. ’L. Savage take from the appellant a stick about eight or ten inches long, being composed of an ordinary round chair-round smaller at one end than the other, and the small end having a hole bored through it, and a string run through this hole, which could be hung on the wrist; the larger end of the round had some holes bored in 'it and seemed to be filled with some kind of metal. “I know what a slung-shot is, and this is not what I would call a slung-shot; there might be several kinds. The only slung-shot I ever saw was by having a ball of shot or metal covered with leather, and a band of elastic or leather, attached to such ball, and made so that the same could be attached to the wrist or arm of a person. The slung-shots that I have seen were made in this manner. And when a person using them would strike with his fist, the ball or weight would extend beyond his fist and strike a person, and by being covered, would cause no sound. The weapon or instrument that the appellant had was simply a piece of chair-round and was not covered with anything. It could have knocked a person down, I presume, if in the hands of a person of the physical strength of appellant.” Webster defines a slung-shot to be a metal ball of small size with a string attached, used for striking. We do not understand that the weapon that appellant had was a slung-shot within the meaning of the statute law of this State. It evidently was-a dangerous weapon, hut not a slung-shot; that is, according to the testimony above detailed. It could have resulted in great injury and doubtless was prepared for that purpose, but this would no-t make appellant guilty under the statute of this State.

The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded.

jReversed and remanded.