Green v. State

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case the appellant was apprehended and brought before A. S. Teats, a Justice of the Peace of Garrett County, upon a warrant issued by Leon Hardy, likewise a Justice of the Peace of said county, charging the appellant with crim ⁴⁵³ inal libel, and commanding tbe sheriff, to -whom the warrant was directed, to apprehend the appellant and bring him before the justice issuing the warrant or some other Justice of the Peace of said State and county. When brought before Justice Teats, the appellant was accompanied by his attorney, G. S. Hamill, Esq., who informed the Justice that the defendant waived all rights before him and would try the case in Court. In reply thereto, the Justice asked Mr. Hamill whether he wanted the defendant held for the grand jury or the petit jury, to which Mr. Hamill said he didn’t care which, and Justice Teats then said he would hold him for the petit jury; whereupon the appellant, with sureties, recognized for his appearance at the next ensuing term of the Circuit Court for Garrett County.

At the time of the issuance of the Writ by Justice Hardy, a written information was laid before him, subscribed and sworn to by one Erazee, charging the appellant with the commission of the alleged offense. Acting under Chapter 475 of the Acts of 1906, the Justice of the Peace transmitted the docket entries, information, warrant, and recognizance to the Circuit Court for Garrett'County. When the case came up for trial in Court, the defendant demurred to the information, and moved to quash the information, warrant and proceedings, upon the ground that the said Court was without jurisdiction to try the case. The .demurrer, as well as the motion, was overruled.

The defendant then filed his plea to the jurisdiction of the Court, alleging “that the Justice of the Peace, before whom he (the defendant) was brought for trial, did not at said time or at any time by himself or another, inform the traverser that he was entitled to a jury trial, nor did the traverser then or at any time pray a jury trial of his said case,” for which reasons the defendant, alleged the Court was without jurisdiction to try the case. The issue as to jurisdiction was then heard and determined by the Court in favor of the State. Upon motion and leave, the State’s Attorney amend ⁴⁵⁴ ed the warrant by striking therefrom the word “robber,” which, in effect, made it conform more nearly to the sworn information. The defendant moved to quash the amended warrant, which motion was overruled, and the case, upon a plea of not guilty, was submitted to the Court without the intervention of a jury.

A verdict of guilty was rendered and the defendant sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days and to pay a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs. It is from this judgment of the Court that this appeal is taken. “It is well settled in this State that when the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal from a Justice of the Peace, its decision is final and an appeal or writ of error to this Court will not lie, unless, of course, the statute authorizes such appeal or writ of error to this Court.” Judefind v. State, 78 Md. 512 . “It is only where the Circuit Court has proceeded without the right or jurisdiction to hear and decide the case that an appeal or writ of error may be taken to this Court to reverse the judgment thus unwarrantly rendered.” Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 374 . “It is true,” said Judge Alvey^ speaking for the Court in the case of Rayner v. State, supra, “the Circuit Court in hearing and adjudicating upon the appeal was not in the exercise of its ordinary common law jurisdiction, but was acting as a Court of special limited jurisdiction, bound to observe and conform to the provisions of the statute, if, in its judgment, the statute was valid. Its judgment, however, rendered within the limits of the special jurisdiction conferred, is not only binding, but is final.” State v. Mister, 5 Md. 11 ; State v. Bogue, 5 Md. 352 ; Webster v. Cockey, 9 Gill, 92 . It is true, this is not an appeal from a judgment of a Justice of the Peace, yet it is very similar; by the statute the Justice of the Peace is required to transmit to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Garrett County all the papers and proceedings in such case, who, under the statute, is directed to ⁴⁵⁵ place the case upon the appeal docket of said Court to be tried upon the information or warrant, as it would be if in Court upon an appead from the judgment of the Justice of the Peace.

The Court, in the trial of these cases, does not act in the exercise of its ordinary common law jurisdiction, but acts as a Court of special limited jurisdiction, and the statute gives no right of appeal to this Court from the judgment of the Court below. Thu- the principles of law above enunciated are applicable thereto. Therefore, it is for us to determine whether or not the Court below had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, and if we find it had then the appeal should be dismissed. The defendant raised this question by filing his plea to the jurisdiction of the Court below and moving to quash the proceedings, which he had a right to do.

As was said in the case of Josselson v. Sonneborn, 110 Md. 546 , the filing of a motion to quash in cases of such character “is an appropriate method to have the question of the jurisdiction of the lower Court determined, and while hills of exceptions are not allowed in trials of eases on appeal from judgments of Justices of the Peace (Cole v. Hynes, 46 Md. 181 ), the evidence taken before the Court below upon motion to quash may be properly certified to this Court as was done in this case.” The main contention of the appellant and that upon which he relies in assailing the jurisdiction of the Court, is that the Justice did not inform the accused of his right to a jury trial, and that in failing to do so he did not conform to the requirements of the aforementioned statute. This Act gives to the several Justices of the Peace of the State of Maryland (except in certain counties, in which exception Garrett is not included) jurisdiction to hear, try aul determine certain misdemeanors, or class of misdemeanors, therein named, in which class the offense herein charged is included, subject to the following conditions: “Provided, however, that the accused when brought before any such Justice, on being informed by him of his right to trial by jury, freely elects to ⁴⁵⁶ be tried- before such Justice, and provided, further, that a jury trial be not prayed in such case on the pail; of the State by the State’s Attorney. If, after a trial before the Justice, either party shall feel aggrieved by his judgment, there shall be a right of appeal within ten days to the Circuit Court for the county in which the alleged offense is charged to have been committed, and in all cases where a jury trial is prayed by the State, or the accused elects to be tried by a jury, or appeals from the judgment of the Justice, the Justice shall take from the accused his recognizance, with sufficient surety, conditioned for his personal appearance to answer said charge at the then session (if there be a session) of the Circuit Court for their respective counties, or the next session of said Court, if it be not then in session. * * * The Justice shall at once return the recognizance and all papers and proceedings in such case, including a copy of his judgment (in appeal cases), together with the name and residence of the witnesses for the prosecution, to the clerk of said Court, who shall place such