State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 24 February 1897
• Citation: 36 A. 823,85 Md. 231
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

36 A. 823

85 Md. 231

STATE v. WILLIAMS.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 24, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Calvert county.

Oliver Williams was indicted for selling liquor contrary to law. From a judgment quashing the indictment, the state appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, BOYD, RUSSUM, and FOWLER JJ.

Atty Gen. Clabaugh and John B. Gray, for the State.

J Frank Parren, for appellee.

FOWLER J.

The traverser was indicted in the circuit court for Calvert county for selling liquor contrary to the provisions of the local law of that county, known as the "Local Option Law." The indictment is in the usual form, and appears to be free from objection. Nor has any objection been made to or suggested based upon defects either of form or substance. But in the court below the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, upon the ground that there was "no sufficient law to compel him to answer the same," and that he "is not bound by the law of the land" to make any answer thereto. Thereupon the learned court below sustained the motion upon the ground, as we are informed by the record, that there was no law to compel the defendant to answer. The indictment was thereupon quashed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The state has appealed. No brief has been filed on the part of the defendant, and the case on the part of the state has been submitted on brief without argument. We are met at the threshold by what appears to us an insuperable difficulty and one which will prevent us from considering the questions which it was intended to present by this appeal. It is true that counsel, seeing the difficulty we must have in ascertaining from the record what is the precise question decided by the court below, have attempted to remedy the difficulty in the record by an agreement by which it appears there was no demurrer filed below, and that a motion to quash was filed upon the ground that a certain local act of Calvert county had been repealed and re-enacted. But whether this be so or not we cannot possibly ascertain from the record. While counsel may be permitted to supply by agreement matters of fact omitted from the record, we do not think it would be proper to allow them to agree, not only as to the questions of law decided below, but also to fix, by private agreement between themselves, the grounds of the decision or opinion of the judge below. The questions brought to this court for review should be clearly presented by the record. But instead of fully setting forth the grounds on which the court was asked to quash the indictment, the record does not even contain the motion, but a general statement, signed by neither the defendant nor his counsel, that the defendant is not bound to answer. This is a conclusion of law, rather than a statement of facts. We find nothing in the record which indicates the grounds of the court's action in quashing the indictment. This action may have been founded upon any one of several grounds. For example, if there had been a failure to comply with the law regulating the selection and summoning of the grand jury which found the indictment, the traverser's motion would have been sustained (Clare v. State, 30 Md. 177); or, if it had appeared that the sale of liquor mentioned in the indictment had in fact not been made within the limits of ...