Ford v. State
Citations
- 85 Md. 465
- 41 L.R.A. 551
- 37 A. 172
- 1897 Md. LEXIS 61
Syllabus
<p>Police Power — ■Criminal Law — Statute Prohibiting the Possession of Lottery or Policy Slips — Knowledge by Party that Prohibited Articles are in his Possession not Necessary — Constitutional Law — Lgnorance of Law or Fact.</p> <p>Laws reasonably necessary for the protection of the health, morals or safety of society are within the police power of the State and are constitutional.</p> <p>Since the suppression of lottery gambling is demanded in the interest of the public welfare, the Legislature has the power to prohibit, under a penalty, any one from having lottery, tickets in his possession, whether he knows what they are or not.</p> <p>As ignorance of the existence of a law is no excuse for its violation, so also ignorance of a fact necessary to be known in order to avoid a violation of the law will not excuse.</p> <p>When a statute prohibits the possession of certain articles, it is no excuse that a party does not know that the article possessed by him is a prohibited article.-</p> <p>The Act of 1894, chap. 310, provides that if any person shall have in his possession any book, list or slip of lottery or policy drawings etc., he shall be liable to indictment, etc., unless the possession be for the purpose of procuring evidence of a violation of the lottery law. Defendant was indicted under the statute and pleaded that the lottery slips which were found in his possession were.given to him to carry to a certain place, and that he did not know what the articles were. Held,</p> <p>iSt. That these facts constituted no defence, since under the statute the mere possession of the articles was made a'crime without regard to \\the purpose for which the party held them, and this crime was not made to depend upon knowledge by the party of the character of the articles.</p> <p>2nd. That the statute is not unconstitutional; it does not deprive a • party of the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled. The crime for which he is indicted is having lottery slips in his
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- statute making possession of lottery tickets a crime, without knowledge as to nature of the tickets, upheld
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Boyd, Briscoe, Bryan, Fowler, Russum, Sherry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Pueblo v. Mantilla RodríguezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1950-03-17· cited 83×
- State v. McCallumCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1991-01-02· cited 61×
- In re Seizure of 7 Barrels of WineSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-01-14· cited 61×
- Fiorella v. City of BirminghamAlabama Court of Appeals· 1950-05-09· cited 58×
- Owens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1999-02-12· cited 47×
- Rucker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1950-11-15· cited 26×
- Jenkins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1969-09-01· cited 25×
- Maryland Racing Commission v. McGeeCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1976-10-01· cited 24×
- Yanch v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1953-01-09· cited 22×
- Braun v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1962-11-21· cited 18×
- State v. TutaloSupreme Court of Rhode Island· 1964-12-08· cited 18×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas· 1952-06-07· cited 17×
- Williams v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1969-05-06· cited 17×
- MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION v. BelottiCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1999-12-01· cited 7×
- State v. ButlerNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1938-02-18· cited 7×
- Ferguson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1956-06-27· cited 1×
- Smith v. City of AlbanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1958-06-23· cited 1×
- CCI Entertainment, LLC v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2013-12-18· cited 1×
- Florida Real Estate Commission v. EverettOrange County Circuit Court· 1958-09-08
- People v. Mantilla RodríguezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1950-03-17
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1888-04-09· cited 387×
- Magner v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1881-02-03· cited 67×
- Long v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1891-06-18· cited 41×
- Carroll v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1885-06-23· cited 40×
- Singer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1890-06-19· cited 37×
- Ballock v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1890-07-01· cited 27×
- State v. Baltimore & Susquehanna Steam Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1859-03-11· cited 14×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.