Brown v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from tlie Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county. The facts of tliis case are fully stated in the opinion of this Court. The indictment is contrary to law. Enticing and persuading a negro apprentice to abscond, is made criminal, and punished as a misdemeanor or felony, in the discretion of the Court, by sec. 30, Art. 6, Md. Code Pub. Gen. Laws— a special law, and inconsistent with the Constitution of the State.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tlie Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county. The facts of tliis case are fully stated in the opinion of this Court. The indictment is contrary to law. Enticing and persuading a negro apprentice to abscond, is made criminal, and punished as a misdemeanor or felony, in the discretion of the Court, by sec. 30, Art. 6, Md. Code Pub. Gen. Laws— a special law, and inconsistent with the Constitution of the State. Const., Art. 3, sec. 32. Declaration of Rights, Art. 4. The indictment is founded upon and concludes, “contrary to the Act of Assembly/’ which is a special law, and' inconsistent…
1Opinion of the CourtWeisel, J.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county, for having, on the 15th day of April 1865, unlawfully enticed and persuaded a negro ap~ *506prentice, named George Brown, to run away from the service of his master, Lancelot Warfield, Jr., she well knowing him to he such apprentice, and contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly, in such case made and provided, &c. She demurred to the indictment, and at the same time filed in Court an agreement signed -by the State’s Attorney for the county and her attorney,' by which it was agreed that “the sole question to be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Leser v. LowensteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1916
- Baltimore Boot & Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. JamarCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901
- City of New Orleans v. VergnoleSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1881