Crouse v. State

• Decision Date: 16 December 1881
• Citation: 57 Md. 327
• Parties: MARCELLUS H. CROUSE v. THE STATE OF MARLAND.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

57 Md. 327

MARCELLUS H. CROUSE v. THE STATE OF MARLAND.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 16, 1881

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., ROBINSON, IRVING and RITCHIE, J.

C C. Magruder, Jr., and William H. Tuck, for the appellant.

Charles J. M. Gwinn, Attorney-General, for the appellee.

IRVING J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant was indicted for a violation of the provisions of the Act of 1880, ch. 82. That Act is entitled, "An Act to enable the qualified voters of Prince George's County to determine by ballot, whether spirituous or fermented liquors or alcoholic bitters shall be sold in said county." The first section of the law provides for the submission of the question, to the registered voters of the county, on the 27th of April, 1880, and directs that the election "shall be held in accordance with the law governing general elections in this State;" and further directs how, and what notice thereof the sheriff of the county shall give. The second section directs the form of the ballots, and says: "the ballots so cast, shall be carefully counted by the judges of said election, and that said judges shall make a return of said votes to the clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County; and said clerk shall immediately make proclamation of the result of said election."

The third section of the law declares, "that if it shall be found by said returns of the judges of election, and proclamation of the clerk of the Circuit Court for said county, that a majority of the votes in said county has been cast against the sale of spirituous or fermented liquors or alcoholic bitters, that then it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, or body corporate, to sell spirituous or fermented liquors or alcoholic bitters in said county, from and after the first day of May, 1880." The fourth section fixes the penalty.

It is conceded, that the case of Fell vs. The State, 42 Md., 83, establishes the validity of this law, if the same has been properly voted on, and accepted by the voters of Prince George's County, to whom it was to be submitted; but the appellant contends, that it has been certified by the judges of election, and proclaimed by the clerk of the county as adopted, whereas, he insists, that by reason of the acceptance of the votes, certain districts wherein a prohibitory law already existed, and which ought not to have been received, and certain irregularities in other districts, which he contends rendered the election unfair, and an imperfect and false expression of the will of the people, the law was not actually adopted by the legal voters of the county at the election, and therefore, is not the law; and his exceptions are all to evidence by which the Court allowed the law to be proved as adopted, and the rejection of certain evidence by which he proposed to show that the election was not valid, and the law had not been accepted.

We think there was no error in any of the rulings certified in the several exceptions. In order to show that the legal formalities, required to be observed before the law should become operative, had been observed, as the statute required the State offered evidence to prove that there had been an election; that the judges thereof had counted the votes and made return to the clerk of the Circuit Court; and that the clerk had properly proclaimed that result.

Having already offered the returns of the judges, whereby it appeared that the election had resulted in favor of the law the State offered the clerk's proclamation. This was competent evidence, and the Court properly admitted it. It purported to be a copy, but it was proved to be the original, and how it appeared to be certified as a copy, was duly explained. It may have contained more than was necessary; but it did faithfully certify the result as certified by the canvassers, the judges of election, and if given to the public as the law required, it was a compliance with the statute. To prove that the public was, by published proclamation, informed of the result of the election, and that the law had become operative, copies of the county papers containing the proclamation, were offered in evidence, together with the testimony of one of the editors touching the publication thereof. To this, the defendant objected; but the Court overruled the objection and admitted the proffered...