Burchett v. State

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, On the night of Saturday, April 12th, 1930, about 11 o’clock, the appellant was arrested on a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of Harford County, residing- in Aberdeen, on a charge of reckless driving in violation of the Motor Vehicle Law of Maryland. He was at once taken before the justice and held in the Aberdeen lockup^ for a trial at 1 o’clock on the afternoon of the following day. The trial occurred at that time, and resulted in a conviction and the imposition of a line of twenty-live dollars and costs, An appeal was taken two days later to the Circuit Court for Harford County. After a, jury had, been sworn for trial of the case in that court, the appellant orally “asked that the case be dismissed because the trial before the magistrate was held on Sunday.” The request was refused, and the ²⁶ trial proceeded.

At the close of the State;s testimony, the appellant filed a motion in writing that the proceedings in the case be quashed on the ground that the trial before the magistrate, having been held on Sunday, was a nullity. This motion was overruled, and testimony for the defense was then offered and concluded. The verdict was “guilty,” and the judgment of the justice of the peace was affirmed. An appeal to' this court was subsequently entered.

A motion to' dismiss that appeal has been filed by the State on the ground that the judgment of the circuit court was final. The Motor Vehicle Law ('Code, art. 56, sec. 201) provides: “In case any person shall be taken into custody because of a violation of any of the provisions of this sub-title, he shall forthwith be taken in the counties of this State before the nearest Justice of the Peace, committing Magistrate or Police Justice, or if in Baltimore City before the Justice of the Peace of the Traffic Oo-urt, and be entitled to an immediate hearing; and if such hearing cannot then be had, he shall be released from custody on giving bond or undertaking * * * conditioned for his appearance at the time and place set for the hearing of the charges preferred against him, or on giving his personal undertaking to> appear as aforesaid secured by the deposit of a sum equal to the maximum amount prescribed as the fine for such offense. * * * In all complaints of the violation of any of the provisions of this sub-title, except as provided in section 20'6 hereof, the Justice of the Peace, committing Magistrate or Police Justice before whom the alleged offender is taken as aforesaid, shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such complaint and impose the fine or sentence herein provided, but any person so convicted of any offense under this sub-title shall have the right to' appeal from the judgment of such Justice of the Peace, committing Magistrate or Police Justice to the Criminal Court •of Baltimore, if convicted in Baltimore City, or court of criminal jurisdiction of any county in which he may be so' convicted, ' and such court on such appeal shall hear the case de novo, provided, however, that such appeal be taken within ten days from the date of judgment. * * *” ²⁷ The jurisdiction, of the justice of the peace in this case originated validly on a Saturday, when his warrant was issued, and the appellant was brought before him forthwith as the statute required. Under its terms the appellant was entitled to- an immediate hearing, if then practicable; otherwise he was to be released, on giving the specified security, or1 held in default of bail, for his appearance at a later time appointed' for his trial. The record does not show why an immediate-hearing could not be had in this instance.

Presumably sufficient reasons for a postponement existed, and’it does not appear that the appellant demanded an immediate hearing, or made any objection to the trial being; held on the following-day. His first objection in regard to the time of the trial was made after a jury had been sworn in the trial of the case on his appeal to the circuit court. In overruling the motion to dismiss the case and quash the proceedings on the ground that the trial before the justice of the peace was held on Sunday, the court evidently acted upon the theory that it was then too late for the appellant to make such an objection. No provision is made for appeal to this court in cases arising from violations of the Motor Vehicle Law.

The judgment of the circuit court on appeal from a justice of the peace in such cases is therefore irreviewable- on appeal to this court unless the justice and the circuit court were without jurisdiction over the subject-matter or the parties. Hendrick v. State, 115 Md. 552, 562 , 81 A. 18 ; New York Mining Co., v. Midland Co., 99 Md. 506, 512 , 58 A. 217 . In Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368, 375 , it was said, in the opinion of the court, by Judge Alvey: “If the circuit court had power and jurisdiction, under