State v. Ward
| Decision Date | 01 April 1902 |
| Citation | 51 A. 848,95 Md. 118 |
| Parties | STATE v. WARD. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Anne Arundel county; Jas. Revell, Judge.
William Ward was convicted before a justice of the peace for violation of game laws, and from a judgment of the circuit court reversing the judgment of the justice the state appeals. Reversed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.
Isidor Rayner, Atty. Gen., and Danl. R. Randall, for the State.
Robert Moss, for appellee.
The appellee was arrested under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of Anne Arundel county, charged with a violation of sections 253-256 of the Public Local Laws of Anne Arundel county, as amended by chapter 582 of the Acts of 1892. When brought before the justice, he prayed a jury trial, which was refused. The trial having resulted in the conviction of the appellee, an appeal was taken to the circuit court. In that court the state's attorney moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground "that the offence charged in the warrant, is one that is not the subject of appeal from the justice of the peace," and the prisoner moved to quash the warrant and reverse the judgment because the justice had refused a jury trial. The circuit court reversed the judgment, and the state appealed.
The only points claiming consideration are: (1) Had the prisoner a right to claim a jury trial? And (2) having been denied this, had the justice jurisdiction to try and finally determine the matter before him?
The sections of the Local Code to which we have referred regulate the shooting of wild fowl in Anne Arundel county. The 253d and 254th sections provide for the obtaining of licenses to place blinds, and shoot therefrom; the 255th makes it unlawful to establish blinds or put out decoys within 300 yards of an already licensed blind; and by the 256th "if any person shall violate any of the provisions of preceding sections, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof before any justice of the peace in Anne Arundel county shall be fined a sum not less than five nor more than twenty dollars for each offense with the costs of prosecution for the same; provided that an additional fine of five dollars shall be imposed upon the owner of any blind who shall establish the same at a point nearer than three hundred yards from a blind already established and licensed for each week said blind shall remain after due notice has been given to remove the same by the owner of the blind first established and licensed." These sections were originally enacted in 1882 (chapter 400), amended in 1886 (chapter 366), and again amended in 1892 (chapter 582). The 256th section, which provides the penalty, remains as enacted by the amendment of 1886. There is nothing in the original act, or any of its amendments, that confers upon the defendant the right of claiming a jury trial, or places any limitation upon the authority of the justice of the peace to try and determine all persons who may be brought before him, charged with a violation of any of its provisions.
It is contended, however, that the case is within the provisions of section 11a of article 52 of the Code of Public General Laws which provides that if any person, when brought before a justice having jurisdiction, shall before trial pray a jury trial, it shall then be the duty of the justice to commit the alleged offender for trial in the circuit court. That section was first enacted in 1880 (chapter 326). It has remained substantially the same up to the present time; the only material amendment thereto, being by Acts 1890, c. 618, whereby the right of appeal from the justice to the circuit court was extended to the alleged offender and the state, even after there had been, before the justice, a waiver of a jury trial. But section 11a, art. 52, cannot be held to include all criminal cases over which justices of the peace have jurisdiction. It was not intended to change or limit the jurisdiction which they then possessed, or which thereafter might be conferred upon them, "by or under the laws of this state." Its purpose was not to interfere with that jurisdiction, but, as the title of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial