delivered the opinion of the Court.
When Louis Thomas Williams was arraigned on a charge of burglary on October 3, 1958, the clerk asked him if he had а lawyer. To which he replied: “1 wаs just informed by the lawyer that the people that was supposed to give me—supposed to have given the money haven’t given thе money, want a postponеment until [ find out if they are giving the money.” He was given the postponement and the clerk told him he had “bettеr get in touch with your peoplе, and get that attorney.” On November 12, 1958, he appeared in court without counsel and was tried by the сourt, sitting without a jury. The record is devоid of any further reference being made of his failure to have, or his right lo employ, a lawyer. He wаs convicted and sentenced.
He contends that the record shows a failure to comply with Rule 723 b and c. Rule 723 deals with the arraignmеnt of defendants charged with criminal offenses. Rule 723 b,
inter alia,
states, “[i]f the defendant appears in court without counsel, the court
shall
advise him оf his right to obtain counsel”; and Rule 723 c provides that, “ [t] he record
shall affirmatively
show compliance with this Rule.” (Emphаsis supplied.) The wording of the Rule is so simple and plain that no elaboration thereof is necеssary or desirable. The Rule means just what it says; and it is obvious from what has bеen said above that the record shows it was not complied with in two respects: the court did not аdvise the defendant of his right to obtаin counsel, and the record fails affirmatively to show compliаnce with the Rule; consequently, the judgment must be reversed and the cаse remanded for a new trial.
Hill v. State,
218 Md.
*182
120,
Judgment reversed, and case remаnded for a new trial; the costs tо be paid by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
Hammond, J., concurred in the result.