Lancaster v. State

• Citation: 44 A. 1039,90 Md. 211
• Parties: LANCASTER v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 06 December 1899
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

44 A. 1039

90 Md. 211

LANCASTER v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 6, 1899

Appeal from Baltimore city court; John J. Dobler, Judge.

Patsie Lancaster was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and PAGE, PEARCE, FOWLER, BOYD BRISCOE, and SCHMUCKER, JJ.

George M. Lane and D. D. Dickson, for appellant. Atty. Gen. Gaither and Henry Duffy, for the State.

BRISCOE J.

It appears from the record in this case that the appellant Patsie Lancaster, was charged, on the 28th of April, 1899 before Eugene E. Grannan, a police justice at the Central police station, Baltimore, with assaulting and striking one Rebecca Hooff with intent to kill. On the 19th of May, 1899 the words "with intent to kill" were stricken by the justice, and the case was heard on the charge of assault. The appellant was adjudged guilty, and sentenced to serve 18 months in jail and to pay a fine of $10 and costs. The proceedings were brought in the court below by writ of certiorari, and from the ruling of the court in granting a motion to quash the writ this appeal has been taken.

By the amended return to the writ the following proceedings appear to have been had before the justice: "On the 19th day of May, 1899, the appellant, Patsie Lancaster, was brought before a justice of the peace of the state of Maryland in and for the city of Baltimore, and duly assigned by the governor of the state to sit at the Central police station of the said city; that on the 19th day of May the charge was changed from assault with intent to kill to simple assault on the said Rebecca Hooff; that Patsie Lancaster was informed by me of her right to a trial by jury, whereupon she expressed her desire to have the case tried by me. The case was then heard by me, and she was adjudged guilty, and sentenced to serve eighteen months in jail, and to pay a fine of ten dollars and costs, as will appear by reference to the return filed by me in the case, and of which this return is prayed to be taken as a part." It is contended upon the part of the appellant: First, that the proceedings before the police justice were defective and irregular, and therefore the judgment is void; second, that the act of 1894 (chapter 281) conferring upon the police justices of Baltimore city jurisdiction to hear and try cases of assault and battery is unconstitutional. Now, it clearly appears from the record of proceedings that the justice had jurisdiction of the person and the subject-matter, and, having acted within the limits of this jurisdiction, the court below committed no error in quashing the writ of certiorari. In Kane v. State, 70 Md. 552, 17 A. 558, it is said: "If it appear that jurisdiction was obtained both of the person and subject-matter, and that such jurisdiction has not been exceeded, the validity of the judgment rendered will not be affected by the fact that there may have been irregularities and want of form in the proceeding upon which the judgment is founded. *** Such irregularities or want of form in the...