Acton v. State

• Decision Date: 01 March 1895
• Citation: 31 A. 419,80 Md. 547
• Parties: ACTON v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

31 A. 419

80 Md. 547

ACTON v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 1, 1895

Appeal and error to circuit court, Anne Arundel county.

Criminal information by the state of Maryland against Samuel G. Acton on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday. From a judgment in behalf of the state, the traverser appeals and brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before ROBINSON, C.J., and BRYAN, BRISCOE, McSHERRY, FOWLER ROBERTS, PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.

Robert Moss and James M. Munroe, for appellant.

Atty Gen. Poe and Ed. C. Gantt, for appellee.

PAGE J.

The information of the state's attorney for Anne Arundel county upon which this case was prosecuted is as follows "State of Maryland, Anne Arundel County, to wit: The State of Maryland vs. Samuel G. Acton, charged," etc. "In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Criminal Information. The above-entitled case having," etc "and Edward C. Gantt, the said state's attorney for said county, having investigated," etc., "now comes into said court, and for and in behalf of the state of Maryland, upon his official oath, gives the said court here to understand and be informed that Samuel G. Acton, late of the county aforesaid, on the 10th day of June, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-four, the same day and year aforesaid being the Sabbath day, commonly called 'Sunday,' at a building erected in the waters of a navigable river, to wit, the Patapsco river, at a place in said river situate below the head of said river, and below the southernmost great branch of said river, and on the south side of the channel of said river, and distant less than one hundred yards of the land shore of the First precinct of the Fifth election district of the county aforesaid, said building erected as aforesaid being contiguous to the land of the said First precinct of the Fifth election district of the county aforesaid, unlawfully," etc. The defendant pleaded want of jurisdiction, because the place alleged as that where the alleged offense was committed was not within the limits of Anne Arundel county. To this plea the state interposed a demurrer, which was sustained, and judgment thereon rendered. According to well-settled principles, a demurrer brings under review by the court all the pleadings in the case; and, this being so, the sufficiency of the information is before us in the same manner and to the same extent as if the demurrer had been interposed by the traverser. The questions presented, therefore, are: First, has the circuit court for Anne Arundel jurisdiction over that part of the Patapsco river which is described in the information? and, second, if it be determined that it has, are the allegations in the information as to the venue sufficient in law?

1. By the act of 1698 (chapter 13), Baltimore county embraced a portion of what is now Anne Arundel county. By the act of 1726 (chapter 1) it was enacted that "from and after the last day of May, 1727, the land lying on the south side of Patapsco river, and contained within the bounds following viz.: From the mouth of said Patapsco river with the said river to the head thereof, and from thence bounding on the south side of the main falls, being the southernmost great branch of said river, and running as the said branch runs to the first main fork of the said falls, then bounding on the south side of the said southernmost fork, till," etc.,--"shall be and forever hereafter deemed as part of Anne Arundel county." In the case of Raab v. State, 7 Md. 497, Judge Tuck, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "It is manifest that the river, after this act, remained, as it had been for many years, within the limits of Baltimore county, and that the jurisdiction of these counties adjoined on its southern shore, unless affected by the act of 1704, c. 92 [now codified as section 135 of article 75 of the Code], which provides that every county lying on any navigable river in this province shall extend its jurisdiction from the shore to the channel of such river that divides the counties, and be divided from the other county by the channel of...