City of Baltimore v. Keeley Institute of Maryland

• Decision Date: 27 March 1895
• Citation: 31 A. 437,81 Md. 106
• Parties: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ET AL. v. KEELEY INSTITUTE OF MARYLAND.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

31 A. 437

81 Md. 106

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ET AL. v. KEELEY INSTITUTE OF MARYLAND.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 27, 1895

Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city.

Petition by the Keeley Institute of Maryland against the mayor and city council of Baltimore and others to compel defendants to pay the amount of a judgment due under decree of the circuit court. From a pro forma order of the superior court for the issuance of the writ, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

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

Thomas G. Hayes, for appellants.

Fred. W. Story, for appellee.

ROBERTS J.

The appeal in this case is taken from a pro forma order of the superior court of Baltimore city, on a case stated for the opinion and order of that court, in a proceeding instituted by the appellee to obtain the writ of mandamus to compel the appellant to pay to the appellee, under a decree of the circuit court of Baltimore city, the sum of $100 for the treatment of John P. Moran, an habitual drunkard residing in said city; the sole object of this appeal being to obtain from this court a determination of the validity vel non of the act of the general assembly of Maryland (chapter 247) passed January session, 1894, entitled "An act to provide for the treatment and cure of habitual drunkards." The act, by its first section, provides that any inhabitant of this state who is of kin to or a friend of an habitual drunkard, as defined in the fifth section of the act, may apply by petition to the circuit court of the county or the circuit court of Baltimore city, where such drunkard resides, for leave to send such drunkard, at the expense of the county or city, as the case may be, to an institution located in Maryland for the medical treatment of drunkenness as said court may designate. The first section further provides that the petition shall be verified by the applicant, and contain the name, age, and condition of the habitual drunkard, and show that neither he nor his petitioning kin is financially able to incur the expense of his cure; and, further, that said petition shall contain the written agreement of said drunkard to take such treatment and obey the rules of the institution to which he may be sent. The second section provides that the court shall be satisfied of the truth of the facts stated in the petition before sending the drunkard to an institution, and that the charge for the treatment shall in no case exceed the sum of $100; and it then further provides that the court shall thereupon order the expense of such treatment to be paid out of the treasury of the county or the city of Baltimore, as the case may be, in the same manner as other claims for the administration of justice are paid. The third section has no direct bearing on this subject in controversy here. The fourth section provides that the officers of the institution to which a drunkard is sent shall become sworn officers, without compensation, of the court sending the drunkard for treatment. The fifth section defines a drunkard to be "any person who has acquired the habit of using spirituous, malt or fermented liquors, cocaine or other narcotics to such a degree as to deprive him or her of reasonable self-control." This statement gives substantially all the material facts necessary for the purposes of this controversy.

It is contended that the act is in conflict with the constitution of this state, for that the legislature has no power to compel the city of Baltimore, without its consent, to tax its citizens for the treatment of habitual drunkards at an inebriate asylum. By the provisions of section 47, art. 16 of the Code, whenever, by petition under oath, any person shall be alleged to be a drunkard, incapable of taking care of himself or herself, or his or her property, any circuit court of this state, and also the circuit court of Baltimore city, shall have the power, in its discretion, on such preliminary examination or inquiry as it may think proper to make ex parte, to issue a warrant to the sheriff of the county or city to arrest and bring the person so charged before such court. Then follows the summons of a jury in like manner with the established practice in cases of lunatic paupers, under article 59 of Code. Under either article of the Code, the proceeding is ex parte, and the questions to be passed upon are submitted to the finding of a...