Kelly v. State

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant was indioted under Chapter 30 of the Acts of 1916, being the Local Option Law for several counties and municipalities, including Havre de Grace. The indictment contains throe counts: The first count charges him with unlawfully selling, dispensing and otherwise disposing of certain spirituous liquors, within the limits of the City of Havre de Grace, to a certain Barren Horton, contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the State. The second count in like form, charges him with selling, dispensing and otherwise disposing of certain fermented liquors to the same persons.

And the third, with selling to the same person “a certain, liquid mixture (which said liquid mixture did then and there produce intoxication).” The traverser demurred to each and every count of the indictment. The demurrer was overruled, a plea of not guilty was entered, the ease proceeded to trial before a jury, and the traverser was convicted and sentenced. This appeal is from the judgment of the court. The only error assigned is the ruling of the court on the demurrer.

The title of the act in question is: “An act to enable the registered and qualified voters of the City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, the First and Third Precincts of .Fifth District of Anne Arundel County, Annapolis City, Allegany County, Washington County, Frederick County, Prince George’s County, Ellicott City and Havre de Grace, ²⁰⁶ each as a separate political unit to determine by ballot whether or not the sale, manufacture for sale and transportation for sale of alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, malt and intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes shall be forever prohibited in the said political units above designated, respectively, from and after May first, one thousand, nine hundred and eighteen; providing for the submission of such question to the voters of each of the political units herein designated and declaring the effect of such election.” Section 5 of the act is as follows: “And be it enacted, That if upon receipt by the Governor of a certificate from the Secretary of State showing the result of such election in each of the political units herein designated, it shall appear that a majority of the voters in any such political unit qualified under the laws of the State to participate in such election voting on this question in such election have voted Tor prohibition,’ then he shall forthwith issue his proclamation to this effect, and on and after the first day of May, one thousand, nine hundred and eighteen, it shall be unlawful for any person, persons, social club,, firm or corporation to manufacture for sale, sell or purchase for sale, transport for sale, dispense or otherwise, dispose of any alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, fermented, distilled or malt liquors or intoxicating hitters or liquid mixtures or preparations, whether patented or not, which will produce intoxication in such political unit or units so voting for prohibition, except' for medicinal, pharmaceutical, scientific, sacramental or mechanical purposes, as may he allowed under the provisions of such acts as the General Assembly of Maryland shall pass at its regular session held next after the date of such election or any subsequent session allowing such sale for such purposes only. And any person, persons, social club, firm or corporaiton manufacturing, selling, transporting, dispensing or disposing of any alcoholic, spirituous. ²⁰⁷ vinous, fermented, distilled or malt liquors within such political unit or units so voting for prohibition shall be liable for all the penalties now or hereafter prescribed for manufacturing, selling, dispensing, or disposing of alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, fermented, distilled, malt and intoxicating liquors without a license; and any place used for purposes in violation of this section, such use is hereby declared a nuisance and shall be abated as such.” The first question raised by the appeal is the constitutionality of the above section, it being1 contended by appellant that it violates section 29 of article b of the Constitution of Maryland, in that, according to, the title, the referendum is to he of the