Judefind v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1894 |
| Citation | 28 A. 405,78 Md. 510 |
| Parties | JUDEFIND v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Error to circuit court, Kent county.
John W Judefind was convicted of working on Sunday, and brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before ROBINSON, C.J., and BRYAN, FOWLER, McSHERRY, PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.
Jas. T Ringgold, for plaintiff in error.
Atty Gen. Poe and Wm. M. Slay, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was arrested, under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace for Kent county, for husking corn on Sunday. He was tried, convicted, and fined five dollars and costs, in accordance with the provisions of article 27, § 247, of the Code of Public General Laws. He appealed to the circuit court, where he elected to be tried before the court and was convicted and fined five dollars and costs by that court. He has brought the case to this court by petition in the nature of a writ of error, in which he designates the following as the points of law to be reviewed: (1) That section 247 of article 27 of the Code is void because it is in violation of the first paragraph of the fourteenth article of the constitution of the United States. (2) That said statute is void because it is in violation of article 36 of the bill of rights of the constitution of Maryland. (3) That the circuit court for Kent county had no jurisdiction to try and convict the traverser, since the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction: First. Because (a) the warrant charged no offense under the statute, as it failed to set forth that the husking of corn on Sunday was not a work of necessity or charity. (b) The warrant shows upon its face that it was issued on Sunday, and its mandate is to apprehend the traverser immediately. It is admitted that it was actually served on Sunday. For these reasons it is void, and no jurisdiction could be acquired under it. Second. That the bond for appearance of the traverser in the circuit court is void because it held him to answer a charge of Sabbath breaking, and no such offense is known to the laws of this state; and it is also in fatal variance with the warrant, which says nothing of Sabbath breaking by the traverser, but charges him with husking corn on Sunday.
The attorney general, on behalf of the state, moved to quash the writ of error on the ground that no writ of error lies to this court from the decision of the circuit court, on an appeal to it from the judgment of a justice of the peace. That motion must prevail. It is well settled in this state that, when the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal from a justice of the peace, its decision is final, and an appeal or writ of error to this court will not lie, unless, of course, the statute authorizes such appeal or writ of error to this court. If the traverser desired to contest the constitutionality of the law under which he was arrested, and have that question properly presented for the consideration of this court, he could have applied for the writ of certiorari upon the specific ground of the unconstitutionality of the law, and the consequent want of power and jurisdiction of the justice of the peace to proceed under it. This court could then have reviewed the judgment of the circuit court on an appeal or writ of error. Nor can we review the decision of the circuit court on the question of the alleged defects on the face of the warrant and bond. That court had the power and authority to entertain the appeal from the judgment of the justice on the question of jurisdiction, as well as on other grounds, and, the plaintiff in error having invoked and submitted himself to its jurisdiction, its judgment is final and conclusive. The case of Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368, is directly in point, and it is unnecessary to refer to the other decisions of this court.
The attorney for the plaintiff in error argued at considerable length the constitutionality of the Sunday law involved in this case, and urgently requested this court to pass upon that question, regardless of our views on the motion to quash the writ of error. Having determined that the case is not properly before us, we do not feel called upon to discuss at length the cases cited or reasons assigned by the learned counsel, but, as a refusal to state our conclusions might be deemed by some an indication of doubt on our part, we will briefly state our views on this subject. We have not the slightest hesitation in announcing that the law complained of is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States or of Maryland. Although the argument of the attorney for the plaintiff in error gave evidence of thorough research and great labor, as well as ingenuity and ability, he was compelled to admit that, if we were to be governed by precedent, he had no standing in court, as the cases were opposed to his contention. There have been numerous decisions in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial