The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-10-02

city the time and period of fifty wears prior t
the passage Of said act The then denies that
the complainant unable by any default of the In
spcc3r General, his assistants to obtain the legal
weight Of said wheIt-that the complainant did ac-
cep The said wheat and pay the price stipulated for the
same in accordance with the prevailing usage and with
out the agency of the respondents any Of his assist
ants but that the complainant accepted said wheat under
the aforesaid usage in plain violation and in open def
anee OF the law regulating the inspection of grain in the
city of Baltimore.
The respondents further answering alleges that after
the correspondence between the complainant and himself
and the former had refused to have said wheat weighed
and measured by the officers duly appointed for the pur
pose in the pointed in respondents letter of
July the 9Th (narked No in complananrs Exhibit A
tla5 the complainant d then proceed to measure said
wheat in precisely the same manner respondent had
propOsgl orally and in writing TO do The answer also
denies Ahat the business of the complainant and other
persons engaged in purchase Of grain has been injured
prevented by the refusal of the respondent or his
sistants perform their official duty.
The respondent then admits that regarding the course
OF the complainant in having ING wheat measured and
weighed without the of the Inspector General
direct yioInl of the law regulating the same that
he Instituted sur against the complainant and his
partner alone the penalties provided by said
law, and denies that he seeks any personal benefit
Iormcr but being the proper oihcer appointed by the
Governor Of this State to carry out the law to-
his duty officer to carry out and the
law that he therefore gave notice to the proper tribunal
Of the violation Of the law upon which the suit against
the complainant instituted in the name of the State
Of Maryland, and which pending before a magis-
ratc tribunal competent determine the rights of
the parties when the injunction in this case issued and
denies that the complainant is remediless at law but that
the magistrate is competent to hear the case and impose
the fine.
after Thus answering the bill the respondent submits
That he has taken the oath prescribed under the Act of
1885 and flied bond Inspector General of Grain in the
penalty Of ten thousand dollars for the faithful perform
Of the duties OF his office and that he has and al
ways ready faithfully to perform his duty, and denies
finally any derclicon of his official duties charged in
the bill hut that assuming the allegations of the
planats bill to be true yet the complainant has ample
legal remedy, and is entitled to the equitable inter
Venon OF this Court and also on the official bond Of the
respondent Tor any damage sustained by reason OF neg
ct Of the respondent in the discharge of his official du
ties and that nothing in the compainants bill Justify
his violation of n law of the State.
Upon this of case from the hill and
answer shall proceed briefly to state and decide the
questions raised and discussed with much zeal and ability
by the counsel on both sides.
The first and most Important objection to the Act OF
that the law is unconstitutional and therefore inopera-
tive
In this cannot concur The Legislature, under the
Constitution of this State have full power to regulate for
purposes ofrevenue trade within the State Indeed from
the earliest period history it will be found that in
secton laws have been passed and enforced without any
doubt question the power Of the Legislature, un-
der the old constitution, to enact the same.
Acts regulating the inspection of tobacco of -four fish,
Guaro Gc and imposing penalties Tor the violation OF an
or any of them, have been and recognized and
executed without any objection and no principle OF CON
stntloai law can be invoked to deprive the Legislature
Of the to define and regulate the mode and manner
in which trade and commerce within the State shall be
governed where the rights OF the citizen are not lhNaue
nor he deprived of those secured to him by the cons
tuition itself such trial by jury habeas corpus, and
other cardinal privileges embraced in the organic law
In examining the act entitled An act to provide for the
Inspection measuring and weighing of grain in the city
Baltimore zsed March 9th 1851 under which these
proceedings have occurred and the consttutionaty of
which is denied, ! find the same to be in my udg
ment strictly in accordance with the powers vested by the
constitution in the Legislature, not withheld from it by
positive prohibition.
1t been conceded on both sides land could not have
been doubted,j that laws regulating trade and com
merce within the State not only constitutional but
obviously necessary and proper for the objects of rev
enue and uniformity and the present act is conceded,
except so far as the Sth section may he considered OBJ
jectiona3le. But my construction of the WHOLE taking
!ect IN TINS regard even in the Sth section This Sth
section which auhorises the Inspector General of Grain
to determine and assess all damages and charges the
seller may have sustained where the purchaser refuses
to receive the grain without complaint as to the meas
ure or weight or six hours shall capse after the sale
it shall he presumed that the bulk does correspond
with the sample-anG then the purchaser shall be
PEELED to pay all damages and charges that may have
arisen by reason of his DELAY or refusal to comply with
his contract TO be assessed and determined by the said
Inspector General" Now do not regard this section
depryng the party interested of fall trial before jury
desired for although the Inspector GeH eral deter
mine and assess the damages and charges and the
patys refusal pay them, he could only be made to do
so by suit at law before the proper tribunals of the State
where the duties authority and power of the Inspector
General and the rights and liabilities of the parties to
the particular contract of sale purchase would he ad
Juucd The sh section does not say that the assess
mcnt of the Inspector General shall he final but if it
did am opinion that all the questions arising prop
erly in the determination of the suit between the seller
and the purchaser Of wheat grain, under this section,
could be distinctly raised and adiudcaed in other
ses Of contract dealing between and upon the
this State.
But if am wrong and this section is vicious on the
ground Of its uncontitutionay it has been conceded
that il the remaining sections good
be carried out the law will be interpreted to meet
Tue benefit or remedy the evils the Legislature had in
view by passing it,
And regarding this law in its general object and pro
visions not only constitutional but essentially
and beneficial the and trade Of the State,
shall so adjudge, and pass from this objection 10
the act to the remaining questions upon which my deci
The jurdiction of this Court as Court Of Chancery
IS denied over the proceedings Of the magistrate in this
1st On the ground that they were criminal in their
form and character and such not within the power Of
injunction
Unquestonaby principle better settled in England
or tins country than that Court of Equity will not IN
deed cannot interfere with Criminal Courts and the pun
shment Of crime The equity jurisdiction are
it is true large and comprehensive embracing every de-
gree OF fraud, mistake, accident and Misrepresentation
ana aodns to The party relief where the strict rules of
But criminal jurisdiction has never sought to ex-
tend its arms Some of the ancient writers English
law have referred or two cases where proceedings
under "informations, in the of the Crown have
been cnOiuCG but it will be found examining these
cases that the udges REGARDED the action a in the ,St
Of civil suit and on this ground alone English chancel
ors have assumed equity jurisdiction In this country
that in criminal case will Court of Chancerv inter
ere and Mr. Justice Story, most eminent as Judge and
author, in the 2d volume Of his Equity Jurisprudence
page 225 soc S93 hey 1.-THE Court of Equity will
not HgTt't TO stay proceedings IN any criminal matters;
they will not grant an injunction to stay proceedings on
mandalnUS, an indictment, information,
OF Ponihlon nut tins restriction applies only to cases
where the parties seeking redress by such proceedings are
not the plaintiffs in equity for if they the pos
SesS power TO restrain them personality from proceeding
at the time upon the matter Of right for re-
dress in the form of civil suit and criminal prosecu-
ton See, also Eden on Injunction, page A.
And at page POI this distinguished urst also SAYS It
may be remarked in conclusion upon the subject Of in
functions that Courts Equity constantly decline to Law
down any rule which shall limit their power and dscre
ton to the particular in which such iuunctons
shall he granted or withheld and there is wisdom in This
%
society which may require their aid and assistance to pro
tect rights and redress wrongs"
Adopting do the doctrine and views of Judge
Story well expressed lot me enquire into the character
and of this particular case as presented
by the papers before me.
The proceedings the magistrate TO recover the
penalty sued for by the respondent Frazier in
the nature OF madamus or an indictment writ Of pro
bition, these being public Wrs issuing from the Crown
or State, to enforce public law or punish its violation
the mandamus to compel public officer to perform his
duty and the other wrts for purposes Of general right
Is, then, this which the respondent in his
St torecorer the penalty provided by the act, such
proceeding before the magistrate would place it within
the definition OF information which is said by the
law writer's to be an accusation complaint exhibited
against person for criminal offence, either immp-
diaely against the King against private person
which, for its enormity dangerous tendency the public
good requires should restrained or puSjsbedt frs
from indictment principally in this: that an Indictment
is accusation found by the oath of twelve men, whereas
the informatons only the allegation of the officer of the
See Blackburn, 3a7 Wharton's American Law o.;
Jacobs Law Dictionary.
VI
as understood and used in England, force
very rarely in use
not able therefore, bring my mind to the con.
cuson that suit for the recovery of penalty prescribed
in civil statute like that before me- is in its ma ure an
information" and criminal in the sense contended for bv
the respondent,
1t IS think, s1t bettgeea parties-the one hay
ing authority by the law to for nformer and
cover to his the penalty and the other subjected
by the same law to its payment for violating any of its
provisions.
1t is not penalty imposed n punishment for crmi-
nal acts and to he prosecuted for suc-f no person
should sue for as informer the penalty under this
there would be in fact violation of the law punishable
az all suits are often brought in thename OF the State
and indeed most of the bonds given secure the Or
phans Court and elsewhere the faithful performance Of
fdUcary Offices taken and sued upon in the name Of
the state; hut this does not deprive the proceeding Of its
real character that of private civil suit proceeding
for the benefit of the parties to it.
IT, however, had any doubt on this subject the opin
ions Of the Court of Appeals have think removed them,
and must now control in my decision of this point ma
king unnecessary to examine the English and American
, authorities referred to in the argument.
In the case of Day The State, decided in 1S4S Gill
p 23 the Court of Appeals rule tha actions Of debt in
sutCd before Justice Of the Peace the recovery OF
fines imposed by the Act Of 1876, in reference to lotteries
crt actions and not crjiaa prosecutions -
This decision practically sustained six years suos
Quent in the Of the State of Maryland Mace
! Maryland Reports, p. S37.
Although in these two cases the decided before the
new Constitution was formed, and the other Afterwards
the question is presented under different state OF fac,
yet think, it will be found that the Court Of Appeals
OF fines or penalties imposed by law, to be cV an" %
criminal proceedings, and, testing the present case ny @
RUE thus established, distinguish 10 uV1 vi"
penalty incurred and sued for under the lottery acts
The 10th section of this grain act provides that no per
SON. except those appointed under the act shall inspect
weigh or measure any grain, and imposes penaiy o'