77 Md. 144 | Md. | 1892
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant in error was indicted at the October Term, 1892, of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County for selling liquor on Sunday. Upon motion of the defendant, the Court below quashed the indictment, because it did not contain “the allegation or averment that the traverser toas licensed to sell or was a trader. ’ ’
The question is one entirely free from difficulty. In the first place, the Court should have declined to entertain the motion to quash. If the traverser desired to test the legal sufficiency of the indictment, he should have followed the plain provision of the statute. The Code, Art. 27, sec. 286, provides that: “No indictment or presentment Tor felony or misdemeanor shall be quashed, nor shall any judgment upon any indictment for any felony or misdemeanor, or upon any presentment, whether after verdict, by confession, or otherwise, be stayed or reversed for the want of a proper or perfect venue, when the Court shall appear by the indictment, inquisition, or presentment, or by the statement of the venue in the margin thereof, to have jurisdiction over the offence, nor for the omission or misstatement of the title, occupation or degree of the defendant or other person or persons named in the said indictment, inquisition, or presentment, nor for the want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved * * * * or by reason of any mere defect or imperfection in matters, of form, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant, nor for any matter or cause which might have been a ■ subject of demurrer to the indictment, inquisition, or presentment. ” Mr. Justice Alvey delivering the opinion of the Court in Maguire vs. State, 47 Md., 494, says: “The manifest object of this statute was to preclude all objections to the indictment that might or could be
The Court below in quashing the indictment for the reasons assigned, has manifestly applied the doctrine announced by this Court in Bode vs. State, 7 Gill, 326, unmindful however of the fact that the Act of 1847, ch. 193, under consideration in that case had been repealed. Whilst the first section oí the Act of 1847 provided “that it shall not be lawful for any person or persons within the State to sell, dispose of, or barter any spirituous or fermented liquor or cordials of any kind, or in any quantity whatever, on the Sabbath day, usually called Sunday, &c.," and therefore contained much the same phraseology to be found in the statute now in force, relating to the same subject-matter; but the second section of the Act of 1847, reads as follows: “That it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the Statq, or such other person, whose duty it is, to have the tavern licenses prepared, to have inserted in such licenses, a clause specially excepting the Sabbath daj .from the operation of said license." The Court inBode’s Case, speaking of the legal effect of the second section, say: “It is made necessary to incorporate into a tavern license a clause excepting from its operations, the Sabbath day; and it is perfectly apparent, from the character of these provisions, that the Act only intendéd to
It follows from the views expressed that the ruling of the Circuit Court being clearly erroneous, its order and judgment quashing the indictment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, to the end that the trial may be proceeded with according to law.
Judgment reversed, and coAise remanded.