Crout v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | 14. |
| Parties | CROUT v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Albert S. J. Owens Judge.
John E Crout was convicted for violation of a statute requiring hawkers and peddlers to procure licenses, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
William Curran and Robert F. Leach, Jr., both of Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., Willis R. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen and Herbert R. O'Conor, State's Atty., of Baltimore, for the State.
The appellant was convicted in the criminal court of Baltimore city upon an indictment charging the violation of sections 26 to 31, inclusive, of article 56 of the Code. These provisions require hawkers and peddlers to procure a license before engaging in that business, and to pay therefor the sum therein specified. The penalty for a violation of the statute is a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100. The indictment appears to charge the offense in the words of the statute. The traverser entered the plea of not guilty and submitted the case to the court sitting as a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts signed by the attorneys for the state and traverser. On the verdict of guilty, a fine of $25 and costs was imposed by the court. It is from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The record does not present the question sought to be raised in the manner required by the law governing appeals to this court, and we are therefore precluded from considering it.
There is no bill of exception contained in the record, neither is it authenticated in any manner by the trial judge. The docket entries show no demurrer, or motion to quash the indictment.
Under such circumstances the appeal must be dismissed, because there is no ruling of the trial court excepted to and certified in such manner as to make it reviewable in this court.
By section 86 of article 5 of the Code, when an appeal is taken in a criminal case the proceedings are to be the same as in a civil case. Mitchell v. State, 82 Md. 531, 34 A. 246; State v. Williams, 85 Md. 231, 36 A. 823; Hamilton v. State, 127 Md. 312, 96 A. 523.
In the late case of Dunn v. State, 140 Md. 164, 117 A. 330, it was said: "There is therefore presented in the record nothing for this Court to review, there being neither demurrer nor formal exception taken to any ruling of the trial court."
In the present case, in addition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...many other jurisdictions the courts have met with no unusual difficulty in distinguishing them and enforcing the law. See Court v. State, 157 Md. 387, 388, 146 A. 241; State v. Amick, 171 Md. 536, 545, 189 A. Landham v. LaGrange, 163 Ga. 570, 136 S.E. 514; People v. Riksen, 284 Mich. 284, 2......
-
Wilkerson v. State
...law, for which reason it cannot be considered on this appeal. See, also, Code, art. 5, § 12 (amended by Laws 1927, c. 224); Crout v. State, 157 Md. 387, 146 A. 241. are, however, two exceptions properly before us. The first of these relates to the action of the court in permitting a questio......