White v. State

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant in this case, with Charles Jones, Luther Smith, Seth Peterson, Bay Porter (Prater) and Ernest B. ISTeely, were indicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County for an unlawful conspiracy, and the indictment contains two counts, which are as follows: “State of Maryland, County of Prince George’s, to wit : “The jurors of the State of Maryland, for the body of Prince George’s County, on their oath, do present that Harold W. White, Charles Jones, Luther Smith, Seth Peterson, Bay Porter, and Ernest B. Heely, ⁵³⁷ late of said county, on the 5th day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, at the county aforesaid, did unlawfully unite, combine, conspire and agree, together and among themselves and each of them with the others, for the purpose of unlawfully making an assault on Charles E. Little, cashier and agent of the Citizens National Bank of Laurel, and for the purpose and with the intent then and there feloniously and forcibly taking from the possession of the said cashier and agent (Charles Little), by violence and by putting in fear the said diaries Little, divers United States Treasury notes, ihe number and denominations to the Grand Jurors unknown, the said notes being the goods, monies and chattels of the Citizens’ National Bank of Laurel, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the State. “Second Count. “'And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath, do further ptresent that the said Harold W. White, Charles Jones, Luther Smith, Seth Peterson, Bay Porter and Ernest B. ífeely, on the said day, in the said year, at the county aforesaid, did unlawfully unite, combine, conspire and agree, together and among themselves, and each of them with the other, for the purpose of the goods, chattels and monies of the Citizens’ National Bank of Laurel, then and there being found to feloniously steal, take and carry away, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the State.” All of the. defendants, except Charles Jones and Kay Porter (Prater), entered a, demurrer to the indictment. The demurrer was overruled, and a plea, of not guilty was entered as to all of the defendants except Charles Jones. A not pros was entered by the State as to Jones, and the other ⁵³⁸ defendants were tried together ‘by a jury and each found guilty on the 14th of October, 1922.

A motion for a new trial was filed on the 16th of October and, upon being overruled, the record states that on that day the same paper was “refiled” as a motion in arrest of judgment. On the 18th of October the1 motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, and each of the defendants was sentenced to1 confinement in the Maryland House of Correction for the period of three years. The docket entries show that, on the day that the defendants were sentenced, an appeal was “noted in open court” on the behalf of eaeh of them, from the “judgment and sentence of the court.” On Hovember 11th, 1922, an order for appeal on behalf of White and an affidavit were filed, and a similar order on behalf of the other defendants and an affidavit were filed on December 5th, 1922. On December 9th a petition was filed for an extension of the time within which to prepare the hills of exception, and on December 12th the court below passed an order extending the time for “twenty days from the date” of said order.

On December 29th a petition for a further extension of the time for preparation of the exceptions was filed, hut the court, by its order of that date, refused to grant it. The hills of exception in the record, which contain two- exceptions to1 the rulings of the court below on the evidence, and one to the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment, were not filed until February 9th, 1923. The record contains a certified copy of “Section One of Hule Twenty-two” of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, which contains the provision that “unless otherwise expressly allowed by the Court, the hills of exception shall be prepared and submitted to the Court within thirty days from the entry of the judgment in the