79 Md. 130 | Md. | 1894
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Greenleaf Taylor was indicted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county on the charge that he, not having been licensed according to law, did employ a certain boat called a bugeye in taking oysters with an instrument called a “ scoop,” within the waters of Chesapeake Bay, and not within the body of any county. He pleaded to the jurisdiction of thei Court, and averred in his plea that he was, and for eighteen years had been, a citizen of Talbot county, and had been a resident thereof for more than twelve months next preceding the taking of the oysters, and that the place where they were taken was within the waters of Talbot county, opposite and to the westward of Tilghman’s island, and not more than a mile and a half therefrom, and inland from a line drawn from Sharp’s island to Poplar island, and that he was duly licensed according to law by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Talbot county to take oysters at the place aforesaid with scrapes and dredges.
The State demurred to this plea, and the Court sustained the demurrer, and1 overruled the plea. Thereupon the traverser pleaded not guilty, and after conviction and sentence, took an appeal to this Court, having first taken an exception to a ruling of the Court at the trial. He also filed a petition and obtained an order for the transmission of the record to this Court as upon a writ of error.
The traverser is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county for an offense committed within the body of Talbot county. The plea to
At the trial under the plea of not guilty, the traverser proved that he was the owner and master of the boat in question, and that it was of less than ten tons burden, and that he was, and for many years had been, a citizen of Talbot county; and then offered to prove that he had a license fromr the clerk of the Circuit Court for Talbot county, authorizing him to use his boat in taking oysters with dredge, scoop or scrape in certain waters of Talbot county, specified in the Act of 1884. On objection by the State, the Court refused to admit the evidence. If the oysters were taken in these waters, and if the traverser had the requisite license from the clerk, he had a right to prove these facts; and they would have shown that he was not gyilty of the offense charged. It was essential that he should prove a license, and he was not obliged to state in advance that he would prove that the oysters were taken in the waters covered by the license. If such evidence were in his possession, he had a right to offer it afterwards. It
was Ms unconditional right to pursue Ms own order in offering Ms proof; and it was the duty of the ¡Court to admit any legal evidence material to the issue, although it would not be sufficient to maintain the issue on Ms part, unless followed up by. other proof. Plank Road Company vs. Bruce, 6 Md., 464 ; Patterson vs. Crowther, 70 Md., 132. The State had offered evidence tending to prove that the alleged offense “occurred at the place charged in the indictment.” Surely the traverser had a right to show that it occurred elsewhere; that is to say, in the waters of Talbot county, and that he had a license which protected him in what he did. The judgment must be reversed; and the cause remanded. We will take this occasion to' say that we see no reason why there should have been a writ of error in tMs case; inasmuch as smce the Act of 1892, ch. 506, the appeal would have brought before us the question decided on the demurrer.
Reversed and remanded.