Higgins v. State

Alvey, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is brought into this Court upon assignment of error, supposed to have been committed by the Court below in overruling a demurrer to the indictment against the plaintiff in error. The indictment was for selling spirituous liquors in the sixth, formerly the third, election district of Caroline County, in violation of the provisions of the local Act of 1876, ch. 188, known as the Local Option Law of Caroline County. Upon the demurrer being overruled, the traverser pleaded not guilty, and, upon trial before the Court,, rvas found guilty and sentenced.

By the Act of 1876, just referred to, it was provided for submitting the question to the people of the several election districts of the county, whether or not spirituous or fermented liquors should he sold therein. The election Avas required to he held for determining the question, on the third Tuesday of May, 1876; and the result of the election in the several election districts Avas required to he certified and returned to the Judges of the Circuit Court of the county; and if it appeared “that either one or more election' districts for said county had cast a majority [of votes] against the sale of spirituous or fermented liquors, then the Judges of the Circuit Court should make proclamation of the result of such election, defining therein the district or districts, or the whole county, as the case might be.” The word “ defining,” as here used, we must read as synonymous with specifying or designating, and thus simply requiring the Judges to particularize in the proclamation the districts or district casting a majority of votes in favor of the law, as we do not understand that the Judges were required by the Act, after the election, to make any new definition of the limits or boundaries of the election districts voting for the adoption of the law. It is alleged in the indictment that the election was duly held ; that there was a majority of the votes in the ⁴²¹ third election district of the county cast “ against the sale of spirituous or fermented liquors ” therein, (and it is stated in the brief of the State’s Attorney for the county that all the districts so voted;) and, upon return to the Judges of the Circuit Court, proclamation was duly made accordingly. The provisions of the Act of 1876 having been thus adopted by popular vote in the third election district of the county, the local Act of 1880, ch. 107, entitled “Aji Act to lay out and establish a new election district of Caroline County, out of the third election district thereof, and to be called Hillsborough District, or election district number six,” provides, “that a new election district be laid out and established out of the third election district of Caroline County, the said new district to be known and called by the name of Hillsborough District, or election district number six.” The 2d section of the Act describes and defines the bounds of the new district; and the 8th section thereof declares that all inconsistent Acts should be repealed.

These statutes, though local in their operation, are public laws, and the Courts are bound to take notice of them. State, ex rel. Webster vs. The County Commissioners, 29 Md., 516 ; The Comm. vs. The Inhabitants of Springfield, 7 Mass., 9 . Therefore, the indictment, founded upon the first mentioned statute, must appear upon its face to be consistent or not in conflict with the provisions of the last mentioned statute.

And the principal question presented is, whether the last mentioned statute has, to any extent, repealed by implication the former statute, or restricted the application thereof, so as