Mackin v. State

• Decision Date: 29 May 1884
• Citation: 62 Md. 244
• Parties: JOSEPH MACKIN v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

62 Md. 244

JOSEPH MACKIN v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May. 29, 1884

388k198 Duty of Judge.

Evidence the effect of which would be to establish the existence of a law, should be addressed to the court, and not submitted to the jury.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Harford County.

The appellant was indicted in the Court below for a violation of the Act of 1882, ch. 92, known as the Local Option Law for Harford County, in selling and giving away certain spirituous liquor. The indictment is similar to that in the case of Slymer vs. State, (62 Md. 237.) The traverser took only one exception, which was to the admission in evidence of the certificate of the judges of election, which showed the number of votes cast at the election for and against the said Act of 1882, ch. 92. The objections to the certificate as evidence are set out in the opinion of this Court. The traverser having been convicted, appealed.

The cause was submitted to ALVEY, C.J., STONE, MILLER, IRVING and BRYAN, J.

Joseph Mackin, in propria persona.

Charles B. Roberts, Attorney-General, for the State.

IRVING J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The indictment in this case is exactly like that in Slymer vs. The State, which has just been decided. This case comes to us on appeal, and not by writ of error, therefore the demurrers are not before us for review; but if they were, what we have said in Slymer's Case is applicable here and would fully dispose of them. At the trial, the State, as evidence, that the law of 1882, ch. 92, had been submitted to the people of Harford County, and, that at the election held, a large majority of the votes cast had been cast in favor of the law, offered in evidence the certificate of the judges of election, which showed the number of votes cast at the election for and against the law. To this certificate the traverser objected, because the same was "addressed to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Harford County, there being no such officer; and because there was no general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1882, and because there was no sufficient evidence, that a proclamation had been made as is required by the Act of Assembly of 1882, chapter 92; and because there was no allegation in the indictment, in this case, that such general election had been held; that such return of the judges of election had been made, or that such proclamation had been made under which such evidence could be offered."

1. The first objection is that the certificate of the judges of election which is offered as evidence, is addressed to the "Clerk of the Circuit Court of Harford County;" and that there is no such officer. The certificate in being addressed in that way, has followed the language of the Act of Assembly in giving direction for such return to be made to that officer. There is but one Circuit Court in that county, and there is but one clerk of such Court, so that it is very evident to whom the law meant it to be addressed. What we have said in Slymer's Case, which immediately precedes this, fully disposes of this point.

2. It is objected that there was no " general election" at the time designated. It may not have been a "general election" in the sense in which the Constitution uses those words with...