Broll v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1876 |
| Citation | 45 Md. 356 |
| Parties | LEWIS BROLL v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.
The appellant was indicted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, for a violation of the Act of 1874, ch. 181, relating to Oysters. The indictment contained six counts; the first second, third and fourth were abandoned by the State, the fifth and sixth were as follows:
5. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Lewis Broll, of the county aforesaid on the said second day of October, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-five, with force and arms, at the county aforesaid, being then and there the master of a certain boat to wit, a pungy called the "James Bulack," and having then and there a license, No. 48, duly issued according to law, authorizing him, the said Lewis Broll, to use and employ said boat in catching oysters with scoop dredge or similar instrument, within the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and Eastern Bay, outside of a line drawn from the southwest corner of second Kent Point to Wade's Point, but which said license did not then and there authorize the catching of oysters with scoop, dredge or similar instrument, on any oyster bar within one and a half miles of Holland Island Bar, unlawfully then and there, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the county aforesaid in the waters of said county, in the State aforesaid, and on an oyster bar then and there, within one and a half miles of Holland Island Bar, did use and employ said boat, as in this count aforesaid, in catching oysters with a certain instrument called a dredge, contrary to the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the State.
6. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath oforesaid, do further present, that the said Lewis Broll, late of the county aforesaid, on the second day of October, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-five, with force and arms, within the limits of this State, but without the body of any county thereof, and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, a Court having then and there criminal jurisdiction of similar crimes, and before which said Court the said Lewis Broll was duly brought for trial, being then and there the master of a certain boat, to wit, a pungy called the ""James Bulack," and having then and there a license, No. 48, duly issued according to law, authorizing him, the said Lewis Broll, to use and employ said boat in catching oysters with scoop, dredge or similar instrument, within the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, and in Eastern Bay, outside of a line drawn from the southwest corner of second Kent Point to Wade's Point, but which said license did not authorize the catching of oysters with scoop, dredge or similar instrument, on any oyster bar within one and a half miles of Holland Island Bar, unlawfully, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, within the limits of this State, but without the body of any county thereof, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, and within the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, in the State aforesaid, on an oyster bar within one and a half miles of Holland Island...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adams
...it goes to the jury simply as a means of enlightenment, and not, as in civil cases, as a binding rule for their government. Broll v. State, 45 Md. 356 [(1876)]; Swann v. State, 64 Md. 423, 1 A. 872 [ (1885) ]; Dick v. State, 107 Md. 11, 68 A. 286, 576 [ (1907) For a sampling of other opinio......
-
Slansky v. State
...given, it goes to the jury simply as a means of enlightenment, and not, as in civil cases, as a binding rule for their government. Broll v. State, 45 Md. 356; Swann v. 64 Md. 423, 1 A. 872; Dick v. State, 107 Md. 11, 68 A. 286, 576. But even though an advisory instruction in a criminal case......
-
Niemotko v. State
... ... Section 5 of the Constitution of this State, the jury are the ... judges of law as well as of fact in the trial of all criminal ... cases, the courts cannot review the evidence or instruct the ... jury on the law, except in an advisory capacity. Wheeler ... v. State, 42 Md. 563, 569; Broll v. State, 45 ... Md. 356, 359; Abbott v. State, 188 Md. 310, 52 A.2d ... 489; Herring v. State, 189 Md. 172, 55 A.2d 332. If ... these petitions were granted we would, therefore, be unable ... to determine whether the facts proven showed a violation of ... the disorderly conduct statute, and ... ...
-
Esterline v. State
...if properly presented by the record. These propositions have been settled by a number of decisions in this state, among which are Broll v. State, 45 Md. 356; Baltimore & Yorktown Turnpike Co. v. State, 63 Md. 573, 1 A. Beard v. State, 71 Md. 275, 17 A. 1044, 4 L. R. A. 675, 17 Am. St. Rep. ......