State v. Boyle

Bartol, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. Two grounds were urged in the argument of this case in support of the motion to quash or dismiss this writ of error. First, on account of defects on the face of the writ. Secondly, because the judgment or determination of the Court below was one from which no writ of error lies.

Considering that the first objection was fatal, this Court sustained the motion and ordered the writ to be quashed, and delivered the following opinion: “It was decided in Buchanan’s case 5 H. & J. 317 , that a writ of error may be sued out by the State as well as by the prisoner in a criminal case. The writ is an original writ issuing out of chancery, directed to the Court of Law, by whose judgment the alleged error has been committed. Formerly, in Maryland, such writs usually, if sued out of the high Court of Chancery, were granted by the chancellor and verified by his attestation. Since the Court of Chancery was abolished, the power of granting writs of error resides in the judges of the Circuit Courts sitting in chancery.

Without such a writ, issued by a competent tribunal, this Court has no jurisdiction or power to review a judgment rendered by a Circuit Court in a criminal case. In this case the supposed writ of error, upon which the proceedings of the Circuit Court have been brought before us for review, appears upon inspec ⁵²⁰ tion not to have been issued by any competent tribunal. It does not appear to have been issued or authorized by the Circuit Court sitting as a Court of Chancery, but was issued and signed only by the clerk without the attestation of the judge, and is not authenticated by the official seal. There is no authority given by the Code or by any statute to the Clerk to grant a writ of error; nor is the writ before us in