90 A. 603 | Md. | 1914
Lead Opinion
The traverser, William Keller, was indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for violating Chapter 160 of the Acts of 1902, entitled An Act to create and establish "the State Board of Undertakers of Maryland," and to prescribe the powers and duties of the said board.
The indictment contained six counts and a demurrer was interposed to each count. The Court below overruled the demurrer as to the first four counts and sustained it as to the fifth and sixth counts.
Subsequently, the traverser filed ten special pleas, and to each plea the State demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and the traverser upon trial pleaded not guilty. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of ten dollars and costs. From this judgment he has appealed.
The first four counts of the indictment are framed and based upon Chapter 160 of the Acts, and if this Act is a valid exercise of legislative power, the Court below committed no error in overruling the demurrer to these counts, and to the nine pleas.
The offence is clearly and sufficiently set out in the several counts of the indictment, in the language of the Act of 1902, and we find no objection to the sufficiency or validity of the indictment as thus framed, in these four counts. *680
The fifth and sixth counts are based and founded on Chapter 444 of the Acts of 1910, and it is admitted, that this last named Act is invalid, under the decision of this Court in State v. Rice,
It will be seen that Chapter 444 of the Acts of 1910, repealed sec. 8 of Chap. 160 of the Acts of 1902, as amended by Chapter 389 of the Acts of 1904, as amended again by Chapter 496 of the Acts of 1908, and re-enacted the same with amendments.
In State v. Rice, supra, we held that Chapter 496 of the Acts of 1908, and Chapter 389, of the Acts of 1904 amending secs. 7 and 8, of the Acts of 1902, Chapter 160, were unconstitutional and all the amendments to both sections 7 and 8 of the original Act were stricken down.
As it is conceded that Chapter 444 of the Acts of 1910, contains and re-enacts the same invalid provisions as were declared void in Rice's case, the Court below, was right in sustaining the demurrer to these two counts, and declaring Chapter 444 of the Acts of 1910 to be invalid and inoperative.
By section 7, Chapter 160 of the Acts of 1902, it is provided, that all persons, firms and corporations, and their assistants and employees, as therein provided, engaged in the business of undertaking at the time of the passage of the Act, shall register with said board on or before the first day of July following.
Section 8 provides that before any person, co-partnership or corporation should, after the passage of the Act, engage in the business of undertaking, and before any member of any such co-partnership, assistant or employee of any such person, co-partnership or corporation, or officer of such corporation whose duties would engage him or her in the care, preparation, disposition or burial of the dead, should discharge the duties of such business, employment or office; and before any of those named in the preceding section (section seven) who were engaged in the said business or employment at the time of the passage of the Act and who failed to register within the time named in the last preceding section, should *681 continue in said business, they should apply to the Board of Undertakers for a license to practice such business and employment; and should the board find, upon examination, that the applicant is of good moral character, possessed of skill and knowledge of such business and has a reasonable knowledge of sanitation, preservation of the dead, disinfecting the bodies of deceased persons, apartments, clothing and bedding, in case of death resulting from infectious or contagious diseases, the board should issue to said applicant, upon the payment of a fee of twenty dollars, a license to practice the business of undertaking. It also provided that licenses should issue to corporations when applied for and that one license should suffice for all the members of a co-partnership when issued in the firm name.
Section 9 provides for the revocation of licenses.
Under section 10 all certificates issued under section 7 and all licenses issued under section 8 expired on the 30th day of April next ensuing the date of their issue, and thereafter before any person, co-partnership or corporation then engaged in the business of undertaking, or before any of the assistants, employees, or officers previously designated should continue in such business or employment, application should be made to the board for a license to carry on such business or to engage in the practice thereof, and upon the payment of a fee of five dollars a license similar to the one issued under section 8 should be issued by said board to such applicant.
The first count of the indictment charges, that the traverser did on the 2nd day of December, 1912, unlawfully engage in the business of undertaking in the City of Baltimore without first having registered as required by law, and without having obtained a license to practice the business of undertaking in Baltimore City, as provided by law.
The second count charges that William Keller, the traverser, being then and there an assistant and employee of a certain person then and there engaged in the business of undertaking, to wit, one William Cook, and as such assistant and employee, being then and there a person whose duties *682 engaged him in the care, preparation, disposition and burial of the dead, unlawfully did then and there engage in the business of undertaking without first having registered with the Secretary of the State Board of Undertakers of Maryland, as required by law, and without first having applied for and obtained from the State Board of Undertakers of Maryland a license to practice the business of undertaking in the State of Maryland.
The third and fourth counts charge a violation of Chapter 160 of the Acts of 1902, and it will be seen, they fully and clearly state the offence as described by the statute and need not be set out, in the opinion.
The demurrer and pleas cover over six pages of the record, but as they present the same question, namely, whether Chapter 160 of the Acts of 1902 is a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power, they will be considered together.
The real objections to the Act appears to be:
First: Because it creates arbitrary and unreasonable classifications, in that it provides:
(a) That one license shall suffice for all the members of a co-partnership when issued in the firm name;
(b) That assistants and employees of undertakers shall pay the same license fee, and have the same skill and knowledge as the undertakers employing them.
(c) That licenses shall be issued without charge to corporations upon application.
Second: Because its provisions are uncertain and cover occupations outside of the sphere of the police power.
Many of the objections and questions presented in this case are really concluded by cases recently decided by this Court.
In Shehan v. Tanenbaum Son Co.,
JUDGE CONSTABLE, in dealing with this question, said:
"The Legislature seems to have wanted to make clear that although they extended the privilege of the license to the members of a bona fide co-partnership they nevertheless intended, when issued to a person, its use was restricted to the use of one person. Corporations necessarily conduct their business through officers and agents. We do not think because the privilege is extended to the members of a co-partnership to do business on one license that it is open to the same criticism, for the Act limits its use to the members of a bona fide co-partnership," * * * and * * * "the use of the license would be confined to the individual members."
The contention upon the part of the appellant, that the Act in question, is unconstitutional because it creates arbitrary and unreasonable classifications, will be seen, upon an examination of the Act, to be without force.
There is no discrimination as between those embraced within a class, and the regulations of the statute operate alike upon all persons and property, under the same circumstances and conditions.
As stated by the learned Attorney-General in his brief, the Act provides for one class embracing corporations, one class embracing partnerships, one class embracing individuals engaged in business for themselves, and one class embracing assistants and helpers.
It is true that under the provisions of the Act, a corporation pays nothing for a license and that one license suffices for a co-partnership, provided it is issued in the firm name, while every individual in order to secure a license must pay the sum of $20.00. Every individual, however, is on a footing of equality, and the opportunity to form a corporation or a co-partnership is open to all. There is, therefore, no discrimination that can fairly be said to be unreasonable or unfair.
In order to secure a license, the same requirements as to knowledge, character and experience are enforced in the *684 case of each and every applicant, without any exception or qualification whatsoever, irrespective of whether the applicant is an officer or employee of a corporation, a member of a co-partnership or an employee thereof, or an individual in business for himself or an employee of such individual.
The classification provided, by the statute in question, we think, is based upon reasonable grounds, and is founded upon the right of the State, in the exercise of its police power; to regulate and protect the health and general welfare of the community.
In Clark v. Harford Agricultural and Breeders Association,
This general proposition of law is so well settled that we need only cite a few of the many cases in support of it: Luman v.Hitchens Bros.,
In Singer v. State,
The objections to the eighth section of the Act were disposed of by this Court on the former appeal State v. Rice,
The case of People v. Ringe,
Under the statute now before us, and as it now stands, a person is not required in order to secure a license, to qualify as an embalmer. The test relates to knowledge of undertaking, of sanitation, preservation of the dead, and disinfecting the bodies of deceased persons, apartments, clothing and bedding in case of death resulting from infectious or contagious disease. *686
There can be no doubt, we think, that such requirements bear a close and reasonable relation to the public welfare, and to the preservation of public health. They are in themselves fair and reasonable and impose no restraint which may not be complied with by reasonable experience, and does not violate in any sense the constitutional rights of the traverser.
We have examined the case, with some care, and find that Chapter 160 of the Acts of 1902 is free from the objections urged against it, and as the Act is but the ordinary exercise of the police power of the State the judgment of the Court below will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Overruling motion for re-argument.
Addendum
Since the filing of the opinion in this case, on the 25th of February, 1914, a petition or motion has been submitted on behalf of the appellant for a re-hearing and re-argument.
The case was submitted on the 8th of December, 1913, of the October Term, without oral argument upon full briefs filed on behalf of the State and on the part of the traverser.
In the opinion that was filed, we passed upon such of the pleadings as were necessary, and held the Act of 1902, Chapter 160, to be valid and free from the constitutional objections urged against it. The judgment of the Court below was affirmed.
It is now contended upon the part of the appellant and urged as reasons for a re-argument, first, that the affirmance of the rulings of the Court below, in sustaining the State's demurrer to the first and second special pleas "virtually reverses the decision of this Court in State v. Rice,
It will be seen that the traverser pleaded to the indictment nine special pleas. The State demurred, and the Court sustained its demurrer to each plea. The single question here presented is whether these special pleas, as pleaded, were good pleas to the indictment, and, even if the facts set forth in them would have been a good defence, were they properly pleaded? The first plea was to each count of the indictment, and is as follows:
"(1) That the defendant is an employee of the said William Cook mentioned in the indictment, the said William Cook being a person engaged in the business of undertaking in Baltimore City and having a license from the State Board of Undertakers to engage in said undertaking business; that the defendant is a skilled embalmer, and as an employee of said William Cook, is engaged solely in embalming bodies for burial; that the defendant, during all the time mentioned in each count of the indictment, has performed no other acts connected with the business of undertaking except the said acts of embalming bodies as an employee of the said William Cook as aforesaid.
"The defendant further says, that undertaking and embalming are performed frequently by the same establishment, but that the business of undertaking is a separate and distinct business from the business of embalming. That an embalmer's duties require him to know the art of preserving the dead body both by arterial and cavity treatment; that he must generally be thoroughly familiar with anatomy, with the action of embalming fluids upon a body, and that the embalming business as such has nothing whatever to do with the conducting or managing of funerals. That *688 an undertaker in order to be competent and qualified in the undertaking business, must have the following knowledge and be able to perform the following, being, among other things, the duties of an undertaker:
"He should be able to sell a casket, to trim a casket, put in the inner lining and put the handles on. He should have a knowledge of all kinds of men and women's various suits and dresses; where to purchase them and how to sell them and how to place them on a corpse. He should be able to place the corpse in a casket and close it up after the service is over. He should have a knowledge of measuring of bodies of the dead and fumigating the room in which the persons died. He should also know where all the cemeteries are located, in or near the city, and where all the steamboat and railroad stations in said city are located, and should also know how to purchase a ticket for a corpse. He should see that the body is placed on a train or boat in time for shipment. He should also know how to arrange for a funeral in a Catholic or Protestant church. He should have a knowledge of the Health Department rules regarding the removal of a body from a hospital or from house to house. He must be able to act as agent of the family in seeing the doctor for a certificate and notifying the cemetery to have the grave ready in time for the funeral. He should know the prices of carriages and hearses for funerals on week-days and Sundays, also for country funerals. He should notify the minister to serve at the funeral and he should see that the box is taken to the cemetery in time to have the grave dug. He should be able to conduct a funeral, such as to go to the house of the dead, set up chairs enough to seat the people; see that the hearse and carriages are in time and outside of the door to carry the people to the cemetery; indicate the appropriate time to begin the funeral services; after the services, instruct the pallbearers to carry out the body to the hearse; read the names from the list furnished by the family and load each carriage properly; *689 sit in the pallbearers' carriage, or in a buggy half a block ahead of the hearse, and lead the funeral party to the cemetery. After arriving at the cemetery, deliver the body over to the cemetery officials, and remain to see that the body is lowered in the grave and the mourners are safely placed in their carriage to return home."
Each of the remaining eight pleas were to each count of the indictment, and each plea concluded as follows:
"And the defendant further says that the duties of a person engaged in the business of undertaking and those of an embalmer are as heretofore set out in the first plea, which statement of duties as therein set forth is made part hereof as fully as if set forth herein at length."
The Court below sustained the State's demurrer to these pleas and held the pleas to be bad and defective, and in this conclusion we concurred.
In Moses v. Allen,
In Fox v. State,
The weight of authority in this and other jurisdictions seems to be conclusive in support of the proposition stated in Fox v.State, supra — 12 Cyc. 363; Moses v. Allen,
Mr. Chitty, in his work on pleading, 1 Chitty, 236, says that pleadings must not be insensible or repugnant, nor ambiguous or doubtful in meaning, nor argumentative, nor in the alternative — Archbold, P. and E., in Criminal Cases, 49; 1 Poe, P. andP., sec. 549; Gott v. State,
The nine special pleas filed in this case by the traverser were therefore bad, defective and clearly demurrable for the reasons stated, and need not be further discussed.
The special plea of auterfois acquit, called by the appellant in his brief "a plea in the nature of a plea in abatement," and in his petition as "a plea in the nature of former jeopardy," was, on its face, so clearly without merit that we did not deem it necessary for the purposes of the case to discuss it, but affirmed the ruling of the Court sustaining the demurrer to it.
The plea is set out in the record, and shows on its face that "the name of the deceased and the date of the offense" in the indictment on the former trial were entirely different from those in the present indictment, consequently they were clearly different and not the same offenses. In the brief filed by the appellant, in dealing with this plea, it is said:
"Before filing the nine special pleas to the indictment, the defendant interposed a plea in the nature of a plea in abatement (Record, p. 10), putting upon the record the fact that he had been previously arraigned under an indictment, identical in terms with the present *691 indictment, except as to the name of the deceased and the date of the offense; that, after full argument upon the defendant's demurrer to said original indictment and each count thereof, the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Gorter, J.) declared unconstitutional the law on which said indictment was based, sustained said demurrer to each count, and passed an order of final judgment discharging the defendant without day.
"Whatever may be the merits of such plea in technical law, it does seem, as a matter of principle and practice, that a defendant ought not to be harassed by a second indictment identical in terms with a prior indictment which, after full and fair argument, has been ruled insufficient and from which he has been discharged without day. The State had its right to appeal from the first judgment; failing to do so, it was bound in equity to let the subject-matter thereof rest as concluded by that judgment."
It is quite apparent, then, that under the defective special pleas filed in this case we were not called upon to decide, and we are not to be understood as deciding, that the statute in question applies in terms to every employee or to the various employees of an undertaker named in the special pleas. No such conclusion can be drawn from the opinion filed in the case. We regarded the validity of the Act as the substantial question presented by the record and discussed in the briefs of the respective counsel, and so dealt with the case.
In the brief filed by the learned Attorney-General on behalf of the State it is said: "The State understands the real contentions of the appellant to be that the Act of 1902, Chapter 160, is unconstitutional and void." And the appellant, in his brief, relied upon the invalidity of the Act as a bar to the prosecution under each plea. The pleas as filed were practically disregarded by the appellee in its brief, and only two were discussed or mentioned at all. *692
But, apart from the objections just considered, it is contended that the Court, by the opinion filed herein, "virtually reversed the decision in Rice's case,
"There can be no doubt, we think, that such requirements bear a close and reasonable relation to the public welfare, and to the preservation of public health. They are in themselves fair and reasonable and impose no restraint which may not be complied with by reasonable experience, and does not violate in any sense the constitutional rights of the traverser."
As to the technical objection to the statement in the opinion, "that the demurrer and pleas present the same question, namely, whether the Acts of 1902, Chapter 160, is a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative power and will be considered together," we need only say that the pleas were so treated by the appellant in his brief as raising the question of the validity of the law. And in his petition for a hearing, now before us, it is stated that the pleas were drawn so as to ascertain:
a. Whether the law by reason of its supposed many infirmities was valid at all;
b. If valid, what acts would constitute a violation of it;
c. If, under Rice's case, no license for embalming is required by one working on his own account, is a law valid if it requires one for the same work if performed by an employee of a licensed undertaker.
Finding no reason for granting the motion for a re-argument in this case, the motion will be overruled.
Motion overruled, with costs. *693
