State v. Stewart, 104.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Citation | 137 A. 39 |
| Docket Number | No. 104.,104. |
| Parties | STATE v. STEWART. |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1927 |
STATE
v.
STEWART.
No. 104.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
March 3, 1927.
Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Eugene O'Dunne, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
David Stewart was indicted for violation of parking regulations made by the police commissioner of Baltimore City. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the State appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C. J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
Willis R. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Eugene A. Edgett, of Baltimore (Thomas H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., and Herbert R. O'Conor, State's Atty., of Baltimore, on the brief), for the State.
Arthur W. Machen, Jr., of Baltimore (J. Britain Winter, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
DIGGES, J. On July 16, 1926, the appellee was indicted by the grand jury of Baltimore city for violation of the parking regulations made and promulgated by the police commissioner of Baltimore city, with the approval of the mayor; said regulations having been made under the authority of chapter 436 of the Acts of 1924 of the General Assembly of Maryland. A demurrer was interposed to the indictment and sustained by the lower court. From this action the appeal is taken.
The indictment alleges that Charles D. Gaither, being then the police commissioner of Baltimore city, did, in pursuance of the power conferred upon him by law, and particularly by chapter 436 of the Acts of 1924, authorizing, empowering, and directing the said police commissioner to make rules and regulations for the control and conduct of all vehicles and vehicular traffic on the streets, avenues, alleys, and highways within the city of Baltimore, make certain rules and regulations; one of which being known as section 8 of article 1, and providing:
"Except on streets as mentioned in sections 3, 4, 6, and 11 of this article, vehicles will be permitted to park within the central business district between the hours of 9:30 a. m. and 6 p. m. provided they do not stand for a longer time than two hours continuously in any one block; and provided further that on Sundays, legal holidays, and Saturdays after 2 p. m. unlimited parking will be allowed except on streets described in section 11 of this article; and provided further that parking at night shall be subject to restrictions as mentioned in section 5, art. 2, of these regulations."
"And that David Stewart, late of said city, on the 7th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1926, at the city aforesaid, in violation of the rule and regulation aforesaid, unlawfully did permit to be parked and to stand within the central business district between the hours of 9:30 a. m. and 6 p. m. for a longer time than two hours continuously, to wit, six hours, in a certain block, to wit, Mulberry street, between Calvert street and Saint Paul place, in said city, the said 7th day of June in said year not being then and there a Sunday, legal holiday, or Saturday, contrary to the rule and regulation aforesaid, contrary to the form of the act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government, and dignity of the state."
By the demurrer to the indictment the constitutionality of chapter 436 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland of 1924 was attacked, and three reasons were assigned for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayor and Council of Forest Heights v. Frank, 47
...Md. 151, 160, 252 A.2d 242 (1969); Scull v. Montgomery Citizens, 249 Md. 271, 274, 239 A.2d 92 (1968); State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 422, 137 A. 39 (1927). Article XI-A, § 3 gives the county council "full" legislative power to enact local laws on all matters covered by the grant of express......
-
Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entm't, Inc., Civil Action No. ELH–12–cv–00058.
...McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12, 16, 570 A.2d 834, 835–36 (1990). Long ago, in [3 F.Supp.3d 442]State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 422, 137 A. 39, 41 (1927), the Maryland Court of Appeals explained the rationale of the Home Rule Amendment: [A] larger measure of home rule [will] be secured t......
-
Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entm't, Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-12-cv-00058
...504, 801 A.2d 148, 152 (2002); McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. at 16, 570 A.2d at 835-36. Long ago, in State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 422, 137 A. 39, 41 (1927), the Maryland Court of Appeals explained the rationale of the Home Rule Amendment:[A] larger measure of home rule [will] be secure......
-
Mayor and Aldermen of City of Annapolis v. Annapolis Waterfront Co., 6
...questions of local concern, See City of Baltimore v. Sitnick & Firey, 254 Md. 303, 255 A.2d 376 (1969); State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 137 A. 39 (1927). This Court has adhered to the rule of construction that when municipal ordinances are "enacted in pursuance of competent authority, they s......