Dulany v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1876 |
| Citation | 45 Md. 99 |
| Parties | JOHN DULANY v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Criminal Court of Baltimore City.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
Exception.--Before the trial, the defendant filed a suggestion in writing, supported by affidavit, that he could not have a fair and impartial trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, and prayed the Court to order and direct the removal of the record of proceedings in his case, to the Court of some adjoining Circuit for trial; this prayer the Court (GILMOR, J.,) refused, and the defendant excepted and took this appeal.
The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BRENT, GRASON MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.
Frank X. Ward, for the appellant.
Attorney General Gwinn, for the appellee.
The appellant was indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, on the 9th of November, 1875, for a violation of the Lottery laws of this State, in permitting a house, of which he was the owner, to be used as a place for selling lottery policies.
On the 18th of December following he filed a suggestion, with affidavit, for the removal of the proceedings in the case to another Court.
His application being refused, he thereupon took an exception to the ruling of the Court, and this appeal is brought up upon the exception so taken.
Exceptions in criminal cases are authorized in this State alone by the Act of 1872, ch. 316. Under its provisions, however, they are restricted, and can be taken only "to such ruling or determination of the Court," as may be made at the trial. In the present case the exception was taken before the traverser had pleaded, or any trial had commenced. His exception was taken therefore without any authority of law, and the case is not properly before us. Instead of taking and filing a bill of exceptions, he should have resorted to his petition assigning errors.
But even if the appeal could be entertained, the ruling of the Court below would be affirmed. The ground of error alleged is, that the traverser being indicted before the 15th of November, the question of his right to remove his case was not affected by the amendment of the Constitution, in regard to the removal of causes, which went into effect on that day, and before his application for removal.
It is argued in his behalf, that the right of removal under the provision of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMillan v. State
...of exceptions under the act of 1872, c. 316, and the subsequent statutes re-enacting and amending it. Smith v. State, 44 Md. 530; Dulany v. State, 45 Md. 99. We not sustain any of the assignments of error. The eighth section of the fourth article of the constitution was altered in some resp......