Long v. State

• Decision Date: 18 June 1891
• Parties: LONG v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

22 A. 4
74 Md. 565

LONG
v.
STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 18, 1891.

Appeal from criminal court of Baltimore city.

Argued before Alvey, C. J., and Irving, Robinson, McSherry, Briscoe, and Fowler, JJ.

Benjamin Kurtz, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Whyte and Charles G. Kerr, for the State.

FOWLER, J. The plaintiff in error, Calvin Long, was indicted in the criminal court of Baltimore city for violating the act of assembly of 1886, c. 480, which has been codified as section 185, art. 27, of the Code of Pub. Gen. Laws, and which reads as follows: "No person or body corporate shall be permitted, either directly or indirectly, by agent or otherwise, to barter, sell, trade, or to offer for barter, sale, or trade, by any publication, or in any way, any wares, goods, or merchandise of any description, in package or bulk, holding out as an inducement for any such barter, sale, or trade, or the offer of the same, any scheme or device by way of gift enterprises of any kind or character whatsoever." The indictment contained two counts,—the first charging that the said Long unlawfully sold certain merchandise, holding out as an inducement for such sale a certain scheme and device by way of gift enterprise; and the second, that he kept a certain place or house for the purpose of selling lottery tickets. At the trial the state abandoned the second count, relating to the sale of lottery tickets, and elected to stand upon the first count. The plaintiff in error then demurred to the indictment upon the ground that the act of assembly of 1886, c. 480, codified as above mentioned, upon which the first count is based, is void. This demurrer was overruled, and, having been duly tried and convicted, said Long appealed to this court from the rulings of the criminal court as to the admissibility of certain testimony. Long v. State, 21 Atl. Rep. 683, (January term, 1891, not yet officially reported.) We approved the rulings of the lower court, and remanded the case for further procedings. A final judgment

22 A. 5

having been entered, a writ of error was sued out, assigning a number of errors. All of them, however, present the same question, namely, whether the act referred to is a valid exercise of legislative power. This is the only question here presented. It was not before us on the former, appeal for we then assumed that the act was valid. The legislation we are considering is one of a class of laws which have been enacted in almost all the states, in order, if...