Whitman v. State
Citations
- 80 Md. 410
- 31 A. 325
- 1895 Md. LEXIS 13
Syllabus
<p>Judicial Notice of an Election — Constitutional Law — Title of Statute.</p> <p>The Court cannot take judicial notice of the result of a local option election directed to be held by an Act of Assembly, and upon the result of which the efficacy of the Act is made to depend.</p> <p>Where the title of an Act states that its object is to regulate the liquor traffic in a certain town, and the Act itself provides for the total abolition of the liquor traffic within a larger territory, including the town, upon a certain contingency, such Act is in violation of the Constitution, Art, 3,' sec. 29, which provides that the subject of every law shall be described in its title.</p> <p>The title of the Act of 1894, ch. 484, is “An Act to provide for an election to be held in the town of Cambridge, Dorchester County, to regulate the liquor traffic therein; and repealing sections 207 to 213, inclusive, of Article 10 of the Code of Public Local Laws, title, ‘Dorchester County,’ sub-title, ‘Liquors and Intoxicating Drinks,’ so far as the same may relate to or affect said town of Cambridge; and repealing and re-enacting, with amendments, section 218 of said Article.” Under the existing law the sale of liquor within certain districts of the county was prohibited, except by druggists upon bona fide written prescriptions. The Act of 1894 provided for holding an election on a designated day in the town of Cambridge, and if the majority of votes were for the sale, then it was made lawful for all persons to sell liquor in that town, and the former law was repealed pro tanto; but if a majority should be against the sale, then the sale of liquor in said town, and in Election District No. 7, including said town, was prohibited even by druggists. There was nothing in the record to show what the result of the election was, but the defendant, a druggist, was indicted for selling liquor in said town. Held, that assuming that the result of the election was a majority against the sale, then that p
Judges: Briscoe, Fowler, McSherry, Roberts, Robinson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Carroll County Ethics Commission v. LennonCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1998-01-08· cited 34×
- Perry v. County Board of AppealsCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2001-10-25· cited 24×
- Bell v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1950-04-12· cited 14×
- Gay v. City of EugeneOregon Supreme Court· 1909-03-09· cited 8×
- State v. KusickSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1921-01-07· cited 3×
- County Commissioners v. County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1904-02-25
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Mayor of Baltimore v. RadeckeCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1878-06-27· cited 151×
- State v. MottCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1884-02-08· cited 34×
- Higgins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1885-12-17· cited 13×
- State v. HartnettSupreme Court of Missouri· 1881-10-15· cited 10×
- State v. BurgessSupreme Court of Missouri· 1882-04-15· cited 8×
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.