Harris v. State

• Decision Date: 23 June 1922
• Docket Number: 62.
• Citation: 119 A. 154,141 Md. 526
• Parties: HARRIS v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

119 A. 154

141 Md. 526

HARRIS v. STATE.

No. 62.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 23, 1922

Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1922.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Robert F. Stanton Judge.

"To be officially reported."

T Durant Harris, Jr., was convicted of larceny in four different cases, of embezzlement in one case, and of obtaining money by false pretenses in two cases, and from the seven judgments of conviction he appeals. Appeals dismissed.

Dorsey J. Dunlap, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Alexander Armstrong, Atty. Gen. (Lindsay C. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen and Robert F. Leach, Jr., State's Atty., of Baltimore, on the brief), for the State.

THOMAS J.

This record, No. 62 of the April term, contains the records of seven appeals from judgments of the criminal court of Baltimore City in seven different cases, in which the appellant, T. Durrant Harris, Jr., was found guilty of larceny in four, of embezzlement in one, and of obtaining money by false pretense in the remaining two, and in each case was sentenced to confinement in the Maryland penitentiary for the period of two years.

There is but one and the same bill of exception in each case, and they are as follows:

"The traverser, T. Durant Harris, Jr., against whom an indictment was found on June 13, 1921, by the grand jury of the state of Maryland, in and for Baltimore City, appeared with his counsel before the criminal court of Baltimore City part 111, upon the call of the case of the State of Maryland v. T. Durant Harris, Jr., on December 15, 1921, and through his counsel, Richard E. Preece, asked for postponement of the case on account of the absence of the alleged most important witness the traverser had, due to the alleged illness of said witness.

And through his counsel produced to the court a certificate of a physician, Dr. Charles S. Parker, to the effect that the said Dr. Charles S. Parker had examined the said alleged material witness at 8 a. m. on December 15, 1921, the same day that the case was called for trial, to the effect that the said witness was sick, and asked for a postponement on that account; and through his counsel refused to plead; and the court required the clerk to enter a plea of not guilty, and proceeded with the trial of the case over the objection of the traverser.

Mr. Preece: The traverser refuses to plead.

The Court: Mr. Clerk, enter a plea of not guilty. Do you want to try this case before the court or do you wish it tried by a jury?

Mr. Harris: Before the judge.

Mr. Preece: May I put a statement in the record, your honor?

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Preece: Take this down, Mr. Stenographer. Trial is had this day before his honor, Judge Stanton, over the protest of counsel for the traverser Harris, as the most important witness the traverser has he is unable to produce in court to-day, and traverser further produces the certificate of a reputable physician, Dr. Charles S. Parker, to the effect that the said witness is sick and traverser refuses to plead and trial is set over the protest of counsel.

The Court: Make note that this case is an old bail case, has been posted in accordance with the regular practice of the clerk's office for five days or a week, and that there is no appearance of counsel in the case, nor never has been, and when I call the case up for trial, the certificate of a physician is presented by Mr. Preece, whose appearance is not even entered in the case.

Mr. Preece: I enter my appearance now.

The Court: And in response to a question by the court, Mr. Preece said he had never known of Dr. Charles S. Parker until yesterday. In the face of this statement court fails to see how he can make any statement respecting the standing of the physician. File this certificate, Mr. Clerk.

The following is the certificate filed:

To the Hon. Judge of the Criminal Court: 'The bearer, J. St. Lawrence Harris, was examined by me this 8 a. m., December 15th, and presents unmistakable signs of lobular infiltration at the base of the right lung, and should therefore be ordered confined to the house under medical care. Respectfully yours, Chas. S. Parker, M. D.'

Mr. Preece: As to the doctor, I would like to say in my own behalf that I did not ask for the certificate, didn't get it and I have never seen Dr. Parker in connection with it, and it was produced in my office by the traverser himself.

The Court: Then I do not see how you can make a statement as to the standing of the physician or as to whether this certificate is a genuine certificate or not.

Mr. Preece: He is well known and bears a good reputation where he practices in Walbrook. The traverser did not file an affidavit as to what the alleged material witness would testify to if present, nor did he offer so to do, nor did he apprise the court as to what the alleged material witness would testify to if present, nor did he offer so to do.

Whereupon, the traverser by his counsel

...