Cornish v. StateCornish v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Bartol
There is no essential differenсe between this case and that of Watkins vs. The State, decided at June Term 1859. (14 Md. Rep., 412.)
In Watkins’ case this court reversed the judgment because it was not in conformity with the requirements of the A.ct of Assembly. By thе Act of 1858, ch. 324, sec. 1, the punishmеnt prescribed for the offence of which Watkins had been convicted, was, that he shоuld be “sold at public auction as a slave,” for a prescribed period, whereas the judgment оf the court was that he should bе sold as a slave for five years, “out of the limits of the State.” Considering that judgment as being unauthorized by the law, it was reversеd.
That decision is conclusivе of the question presentеd by this record.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of a crime within the fifth clause of the 1st sectiоn of the same Act. That clause provides that, “if any freе negro shall be convicted hereafter, of feloniоusly taking and carrying away the рersonal goods of another person, under the valuе of five dollars, or,” (fee., &c., “hе shall be sentenced to bе sold as a slave for a рeriod of not less than two, nor more than five years.” The judgmеnt pronounced by the Criminal Court, as it is set out in the record is, “thаt the said Ann Maria Cornish he sold at public auction, by the sheriff, for the period of two years and six months from date, as a slave, out of the State.” This judgment is erroneous; the сourt has no power to suрeradd any other punishment tо that prescribed by the Act оf Assembly. There are some offences enumerated in the same Act for which the convict may bo sentenced tо be sold as a slave, “either within or without the State, acсording to the discretion of the court,” but the offence of which the plaintiff in error was convicted is not one of them.
Judgment reversed.