Roth v. State

• Decision Date: 21 June 1899
• Citation: 89 Md. 524,43 A. 769
• Parties: ROTH v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

43 A. 769

89 Md. 524

ROTH

v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 21, 1899.

Error to circuit court, Washington county; Edward Stake, Judge.

Action for forcible entry and detainer by the state of Maryland against Abraham Roth and others. From an order overruling motion to quash the conviction, defendant Roth brings error. Writ of error quashed.

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

W. C. Griffith and D. C. Gilbert, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Gaither and Charles D. Wagaman, for appellee.

McSHERRY, C. J. This is a proceeding for forcible entry and detainer, and the record has been brought into this court by petition, as upon writ of error. It appears by the record that on October 11, 1898, complaint upon oath was made to a justice of the peace of Washington county that Abraham Roth and five other persons did unlawfully eject, expel, and remove Sallie S. Hawken and Elizabeth Birkigt from certain premises, whereof the latter were rightfully seised and possessed; and that the said Abraham Roth and the five other persons, with force and strength, did then detain the premises, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. Upon this complaint, the justice on the same day issued a warrant addressed to a constable, commanding him immediately to apprehend the said Abraham Roth and the other parties named in the writ, and to bring them before the justice forthwith, to be dealt with according to law. Abraham Roth and the others were apprehended, as appears by the return of the constable indorsed on the warrant. On the following day all the defendants were before the justice, and he "did personally go and did find and see the aforesaid Daniel Roth, Robert Myers, and Grayson Myers detaining unlawfully, and with force and arms, the aforesaid messuages and premises, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided"; and being "satisfied, by evidence taken on the spot, that Abraham Roth was assisting, counseling, and advising in the aforesaid unlawful and forcible detention," it was considered and adjudged by the justice "that the aforesaid Abraham Roth," etc., "are convicted by my own proper view, of detaining, with strong hand and forcibly, the messuage and premises aforesaid, unlawfully and against the form of the statute made and provided." Thereupon a fine was imposed upon each of the defendants, and they were committed to jail in default of payment. A full record of the proceedings before the justice of the peace was filed by him in the circuit court for Washington county, and the case was placed on the criminal appeals docket. Subsequently an application was made to the circuit court for Frederick county for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was issued, and Abraham Roth and the other parties were discharged from custody five days after being committed. On December 5, 1898, a motion to quash the conviction was filed in the circuit court for Washington county, and two days later an agreement was entered into between the state's attorney and the counsel for the parties to treat the record sent up by the magistrate as though it had been brought into the circuit court by a writ of certiorari. On March 23, 1899, the circuit court overruled the motion to quash the conviction, and, in consequence of this ruling, the record has been brought into this court as upon writ of error. In the petition for the transmission of the record to this court, it is alleged that the justice had no jurisdiction to impose a fine upon Roth or to commit him to prison; that his conviction was in violation of the constitution and laws of the state; and that it does not appear on the face of the conviction that there bad been an unlawful entry proven to the satisfaction of the justice. The petition prays that the record be sent into this court, so that the court of appeals "may determine whether said justice of the peace did or did not act within his jurisdiction."

As the parties were all released from custody by the circuit court for Frederick county under the writ of habeas corpus, it has not been suggested that any practical question arises out of the refusal of the circuit court to quash the conviction, inasmuch as it does not appear that the parties are still in possession of the premises. But, passing this by, we proceed to determine whether there is any subject before us for review. If the justice of the peace had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case before him, this court obviously has no authority to review either his judgment or the order of the circuit court on appeal from him. For the correction of any error committed by him, if he possessed jurisdiction in the premises, the law has provided a remedy by allowing an appeal to the circuit court, and the decision of that tribunal upon such appeal is final and conclusive. Clark v. Vannort, 78 Md. 218, 27 Atl. 982. If the jurisdiction of the justice be assailed on the ground...