Maryland case law › Grumbine v. State

Grumbine v. State

60 Md. 355 (1883) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedStone, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe appellant, Grumbine, was a toll-gatherer on a turnpike road in Frederick County, indicted for demanding and receiving a greater toll than authorized by law.

Stone, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Grumbine, a toll-gatherer on a turnpike road in Frederick County, was indicted in the Circuit Court for that county for demanding and receiving a greater toll than he was authorized by law to demand and receive. At the trial two exceptions were taken to the admissibility of evidence, and these two exceptions are the only 356 matters properly before this Court. There was a demurrer to the indictment, which was overruled ; but as the appellant did not choose to rest his case upon the demurrer, but went to trial on the facts, and as no final judgment has been entered, and the Attorney-General has not consented to argue the demurrer, it is not properly before us.

Stripped of all its verbiage, the first exception presents only1 the question whether ignorance of the law will excuse the violator. It is hardly necessary for us to say that it does not. The Court below was therefore clearly right in excluding the evidence of such ignorance. The second exception raises the question whether the turnpike company had the right in 1868 to change the rate of tolls fixed by the charter of the company, and the appellant insists that the company had such a right.

The Act of 1804, chap. 51, the charter of this company, fixed the rate of tolls which the company might demand and receive. This toll sheet so fixed was to be the guide for the company unless changed in the mode prescribed by the Act. The Legislature of that day seems to have supposed that the profits of the road would likely be much greater than experience has shown them to be, and the general intent of the charter was to restrict the clear profits within ten per cent. In no possible contingency were the stockholders to get more than ten per cent, dividends on their stock, and the rate of tolls fixed in the Act was with that view.

The prominent and controlling idea with the Legislature seems to have been to furnish the facilities of travel as cheap as possible to the communities through which the roads passed, consistently with sufficient inducement to capitalists to invest their money in them. To carry out this intention the company was required by the 23rd section, once a year at least, and oftener if required, to lay before the Treasurer of the Western Shore a detailed account of their receipts and 357 disbursements, and if he, the Treasurer, found that the rate of tolls fixed in the Act had produced, and would likely in the future produce, more than ten

This is a preview of Grumbine v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.