State v. Brown

²⁸ Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The above entitled case arises out of a supposed repugnance between an ordinance of the Mayor' and City Council of Baltimore, and an act of the Legislature of Maryland of 1920, ■chapter 506, section 163, part 4, defining the right of way of vehicles, and especially motor vehicles, over the streets of Baltimore City. By the act of the Legislature, which was applicable not only to the City of B.altimore, but to the entire State, including the City of Baltimore, a motor vehicle was required to yield the right of way to other vehicles on a street or road approaching from the right. By the ordinance of the Mayor and City Council there were exempted from the application of this rule fire -apparatus, ambulances, police vehicles, and the vehicles of physicians who had registered with and been granted special privileges by the police force of that city.

The traverser in this case was indicted for a violation of this ordinance, and to the indictment he filed a demurrer, which, coming on to he heard before the judge assigned to the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, was sustained, and from that ruling the present appeal has been taken by the State. There is no question, of fact presented in the record upon which there is any controversy whatever. The sole question is as to .the validity of this ordinance, and particularly the power of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to adopt an ordinance such as that under which it was sought to bring the traverser to trial, as being in derogation of the Act of Assembly. The question thus presented is not a new one in this State.

It was first presented in the case of Rossberg v. State, 111 Md. 394 , in which Judge Peabce., .speaking fox this Court, filed a very full and elaborate opinion with regard to a somewhat similar contradiction between the State law .and an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, designed as far as possible to put an end to the cocaine traffic, and in that cáse,. after an extensive review of the ²⁹ authorities, both in this State and elsewhere, the conclusion was reached that the ordinance in question came under1 the police1 power as delegated by the Legislature to the municipal corporation, and the validity, of the ordinance was upheld. That decision has been cited, followed and adopted in quite a number of cases since it was decided. Schultz v. State, 112 Md. 211 ; Baltimore v. Hampton Court, 126 Md. 348 ; Brown v. Stubbs, 128 Md. 133 ; Benesch v. State, 129 Md. 515 (which was a liquor case); Gomeringer v. McAbee, 129 Md. 559 ; Lee v.