State v. Shillinger

Tuck, J., delivered the opinion of this court. Philip Shillinger was indicted in the criminal court of Baltimore city for selling liquor on Sunday. Upon his suggestion and affidavit, the criminal court ordered the record of proceedings to be transmitted to the circuit court for Howard county. The traverser, by his counsel, moved “that the cause be remanded to the criminal court of Baltimore city,” upon the ground “that the circuit court for Howard county had no jurisdiction — Howard not being an adjoining county to Baltimore city.” Upon this motion the circuit court ordered the record to be returned to the criminal court, “being of opinion that the said court had no jurisdiction in said cause.” The ca^e is now in this court on a writ of error.

It has been decided by this court, in Wright vs. Hamner, 5 Md. Rep., 370, that Baltimore city and county are separate and distinct parts of (he State for purposes of government. The city is no longer a part of the county for such purposes, but must be regarded as an adjoining jurisdiction. Upon this' view of the relation of the city and county to each other it was held, that a civil case might be removed from the Superior Court of Baltimore city to the circuit court for the county. It cannot, be maintained, that the city is separate from the county as to the civil jurisdiction of its courts, and a part of it as to the administration of criminal law.

The proviso in the 28th section of the 4th article of the constitution does not affect the point before us. The power of removal to any adjoining ⁴⁵¹ county in criminal causes is general. In civil cases it is restricted to an adjoining county within the circuit, except as to the city of Baltimore, whose courts arc authorised to remove' such cases to an adjoining county, because otherwise there could be no removal in these cases, inasmuch as the city of Baltimore is