Lynn v. State
Citations
- 84 Md. 67
- 35 A. 21
- 1896 Md. LEXIS 95
Syllabus
<p>Bastardy—Ex-Post Facto Law— Criminal Pleading■—Dilatory Pleas— Erroneous Sentence—Constitutional Law—Former Acquittal.</p> <p>Upon an indictment for bastardy, a plea stating that the Court is without jurisdiction is bad, because setting forth a conclusion of law without stating the facts out of which the defence arises.</p> <p>And a plea that “there is no proper recognizance entered into by the traverser from the judgment of any justice of the peace, and upon which this indictment is based, and therefore the Court has no jurisdiction,” is bad for the same reason, since the facts are not set forth to enable the Court to determine wherein the recognizance was not proper.</p> <p>A plea showing that upon a former indictment the only question determined was one affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, which was determined in defendants’ favor, is not a good plea of former acquittal.</p> <p>A law that changes a punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed is an ex-post facto law.</p> <p>Under Code, Art. 12, sec. 2, as it stood in January, 1894, a justice of the peace was authorized to cause the putative father of an illegitimate child to be arrested and give security to indemnify the County from charges which might arise from the maintenance of the child. In default of such security the father was' committed to jail, but was discharged upon its being given. If no security was given he was liable to confinement in jail until the child was seven years old. By the Act of 1894, chap. 104, which took effect March 1st, 1894, and repealed and re-enacted Code, Art. 12, sec. 2, without any saving as to pending cases, it was provided that upon failure of the putative father to give security, the justice of the peace shall commit him to the custody of the sheriff for the period of twelve months, and upon an appeal to the Circuit Court he could be committed for not less than six nor more than twelve months. Defendant was indicted fo
Judges: Boyd
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Tichnell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1980-06-10· cited 300×
- Gill v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1972-04-12· cited 72×
- Anderson v. Department of Health & Mental HygieneCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1987-07-30· cited 43×
- State v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1898-06-22· cited 11×
- State v. KavanaughNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1927-05-16· cited 5×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Calder v. BullSupreme Court· 1798-08-17· cited 1,860×
- In re StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1880-10-07· cited 85×
- Beard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1891-03-25· cited 20×
- McDonald v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1876-06-16· cited 11×
- State v. ScarboroughCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1881-01-27· cited 5×
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.