Stewart v. State

Le Grand, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes before us on a writ of error. It appears from the record, that George Stewart was indicted by the grand jurors for Baltimore city, at January term 1851, of Baltimore city court, for the murder of Thomas Moody. At May term 1851, he suggested to the court that he could not have a fair and impartial trial in said court, whereupon the court passed the following order: “Ordered and adjudged by the court here, that the record of proceeding of the said cause against the said George Stewart, be transmitted to Howard District court, to be held at Ellicotts Mills on the third Monday of September next, that the said court may then and there proceed to the trial thereof, and to do therein as to justice may appertain, &c.” At the September term 1851, of the court held for Howard District, George Stewart was tried, and by the verdict of a jury, found guilty of murder in the second degree.

A motion was filed in arrest of judgment, -which was overruled by an equal division of the court. The prisoner was sentenced to five years and six months confinement in the penitentiary. Upon this state of the case, a writ of error was sued out by the prisoner. The following are assigned as error in the proceedings : 1st.

Because the court which tried him had no jurisdiction to try said case, because the order of Baltimore city court directs the record of proceedings in said case to be transmitted to Howard District court, and not to the court of Howard District of Anne Arundel county, for trial-. 2nd. Because the record of proceedings are ordered to be ¹³³ transmitted to Howard District cowl, and not to the judges of the court of Howard District of Anno Arundel county. 3rd. Because the proceedings were not transmitted do an adjoining county. By the act of 1838, ch. 22, and the act of the succeeding session, (1839, ch. 49,) the constitution and form of government were so altered as to erect Howard District out of a part of Anne Arundel county.

By the 4th section of the act of 1838, a court is established to he styled 11 The court of Howard District of Anne Arundel county.” The record of proceedings in this case was ordered to he transmitted to “Howard District court." The first cause of error assigned, consists in the fact that the style of the court, as given in the act of 1838, ch. 22, was not strictly followed in the order of Baltimore city court, directing the transmission of the record of proceedings. It must be observed that, the order of Baltimore city court did not simply designate the court to which the record was to be transmitted, as Howard District court, hut to such court “to be held at Ellicotts Mills on the third Monday of September,” &c. Here is not only a designation of a court by name and style, hut by the place and time, when and where it was to be held. By the 34th section of the set