81 A. 10 (Md. 1911), State v. Gambrill

Citation:81 A. 10, 115 Md. 506
Opinion Judge:BRISCOE, J.
Party Name:STATE v. GAMBRILL.
Attorney:Emory L. Stinchcomb and Isaac Lobe Straus, Atty. Gen., for the State. Clifton S. Brown and George Whitelock, for appellee.
Judge Panel:Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, PATTISON, and URNER, JJ.
Case Date:April 19, 1911
Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 10

81 A. 10 (Md. 1911)

115 Md. 506

STATE

v.

GAMBRILL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 19, 1911

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore City.

George T. Gambrill was indicted for unlawfully issuing a warehouse receipt without destroying an outstanding receipt. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the State appeals. Affirmed.

Emory L. Stinchcomb and Isaac Lobe Straus, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Clifton S. Brown and George Whitelock, for appellee.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, PATTISON, and URNER, JJ.

BRISCOE, J.

The appellee was indicted on the 5th day of May, 1910, in the criminal court of Baltimore city for the alleged violation of section 194 of article 27 of the Code of Public General Laws of 1904, entitled, "Crimes and Punishments." The indictment, in substance, alleges that the traverser on the 27th day of August, in the year 1908, being an agent and officer of the Roxbury Distilling Company, a corporation, unlawfully did willfully issue a certain receipt of the said corporation, dated the 27th day of August, 1908, numbered 335, to a certain person unknown, for 125 barrels of rye whisky, being on deposit, and under the control of the said corporation, without, before the issuance of the receipt, having canceled and destroyed a certain other receipt, then outstanding, for the same number of barrels of whisky previously issued on the 17th day of June, in the year 1907, to the order of the Citizens' National Bank of Baltimore, contrary to the form of the act of assembly in such case made and provided, etc.

The material part of the section of the Code upon which the indictment rests is as follows: "No warehouseman or corporation or person whatsoever having issued or caused

Page 11

to be issued or having outstanding and issued by an agent or officer of such person or corporation as aforesaid any receipt, acceptance of order or other voucher for goods, chattels or commodities as on deposit or the control of such person or corporation shall issue any other receipt, acceptance of order or other voucher whatsoever for the same, or any part thereof, until the said first issued instrument shall have been returned and canceled or destroyed; and no person or corporation whatsoever having issued or having outstanding, as aforesaid, any such receipt, acceptance of order or other voucher aforesaid, and no agent or officer of any such person or corporation shall part with, deliver or remove or permit to be delivered or removed the goods, chattels or commodities in such instrument named or described, or any part thereof, except only to or by the holder of said instrument, or upon his order, and upon the presentation of said instrument with his indorsement in every case, or without canceling or destroying said instrument in case of complete delivery or removal or...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP