O'Connell v. State

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Challes E. O’Connell, the appellant, was convicted of a violation in Washington County of section 247 of article 27 of the Code of Public General Laws, codification of the Act of 1898, chapter 285. He demurred to the indictment, and the demurrer was sustained as to certain counts- and overruled as to others, and the conviction was on the twelfth count. Hence this appeal.

It is not necessary to- set out the indictment, because our conclusion is based on the contention of the ap-pellant that ³⁷⁸ the act does not apply to Washington County. The demurrer should have been sustained on that ground. The history of race track gambling in this state is fully covered by the opinion of this court written by Judge Constable in the case of Agricultural Society of Montgomery County v. State, 130 Md. 474 , and we need not repeat it here. The Act of 1898, chapter 285, repealed and re-enacted with amendments the Act of 1894, chapter 232, codified as section 124A of article 27.

It broadened and extended the prohibitions of the previous act, and added four new sections to follow 124A, to be designated as sections 124B, 124C, 124D, 124E. The new act was codified in the Code of 1904 as sections 202-206 of article 27, the last section embracing the changes in section 124E of the act relating to number of days permitted in Baltimore and Harford Counties by the amendatory acts of 1902^, chapter 572, and 1904, chapter 585, each of which repealed and re-enacted only section 124E of the Act of 1898, and exempted Cecil, Washington, and Anne Arundel Counties from its operation. The Act of 1898 is codified in the Annotated Code of 1912-1914, vol. 3, as sections 217 to 221 of article 27, and in the Code of 1924 as sections 247-251 of article 27, the last section embracing the changes in section 124E of the act as to time permitted in Baltimore and Harford. Counties by the said amendatory acts of 1902 and 1904, and an additional amendment as to time, made by the Act of 1906, chapter 127; and exempting said three counties.

It will be noted that the Act of 1898 has been amended only as to section 124E; and whereas the exemption of said counties in said section as originally enacted, and as reenacted by the Acts of 1902, 1904 and 1906, was, in each instance, from the provision of “this Act” in the several codifications the exemption is from the provisions of “this section.” In Close v. Southern Md. Agricultural Assn., 134 Md. 629 , we held, in an opinion by Chief Judge Boyd, that the four sections added by the Act of 1898, and codified in the Code of 1912-1914 as sections 218-221, were unconstitu ³⁷⁹ tional in that they imposed non judicial duties