The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1890-07-04
Judge stewards Decision Reversed.

The Court of Appeals on Tueeday handed
down It's decision in the case of ex-State
Treasurer Stevenson Archer, reversing the
previous decision of Judge Stewart in the
Criminal Court of Baltimore and demanding
the case for trial. The opinion was unani-
nous and was delivered by Judge John NJ.
Robinson, of Queen Anne's county, presid.
ing Judge of the second judicial circuit. The
judges present and uniting in the opinion
were Judges Alvey, Irving, Bryan, McSher-
ry, Fowler and Briscoe, all of whom were on
the bench when the question was argued.
1t will be remembered that when the
charge against Mr.. Archer for embezzlement
came up for trial, his counsel demurred to the
Indictment on the ground that the statute
under which the bill was framed does not ap-
ply to State Treasurer. Judge Stewart held
this view and sustained the demurrer which
the Court of Appeals has now set aside.
The Judges in their written opinion say
the sole question is whether the offense charg-
ed comes within the provision of the code, or
in other words, whether the code provides
for the punishment of the State Treasurer
who embezzles State funds. The question is
narrow one and turns entirely upon the
construction of the statute.
"All sgree," says the court, "that the in
tention of the Legislature must govern in the
construction of all statutes. This rule lies
at the bottom of all statutory construction.
The law, it is true. in its tenderness for life
and liberty, requires that penal statutes
should be strictly construed, by which is
meant that courts will not extend the punish
nent to cases not plainly within the Ian
guage used.
AT the same time such statutes are to be
fairly and reasonably construed, and courts
will not, by narrow and strained construc-
tion, exclude from their operation cases plain
ly within their scope and meaning"
The Judges also say that the intention is to
be ascertained primarily from the language
ofthe statute itself and argue that it plainly
provides not only for the punishment of Off
GERS whose duty it is to pay over and account
to the treasurer, but it further provides for the
punishment of all officers who shall embezzle
money, funds or evidences of debt belonging
to the State which they are bound to pay
sver, account for or deliver to any other per-
son by law authorized to receive the same
The opinion also says:
''But If there could be any question as to the
construction Of the statute, the title to the
statute shows beyond doubt, that the Legis-
lature meant to provide for the punishment of
every officer who shall embeZzle or appropriate
to his own use money or funds belonging to the
State. Section 80, article 81, Of the code is q
codifcatiou Of the act of 1854, chapter 1913, and
the title of the act reads as follows San act to
punish the fraudulent embezzlement or appro-
priation of money, funds or evidences of debt
BY persons elected to any Office or holding office
corporate authority of Baltimore, or under any
% S.s sncs s1SRCy legally authorized to appoint
$50, If there be any doubt as to the precise
meaning of the language used in the body of the
act now before US, which we by no means con-
cede, yet when construed in connection with its
title we are forced to the conclusion that the
Legislature meant to provide for the punish
ment OF every officer who shall embezzle funds
belonging to the State and which he was bound
10 pay over, account for or deliver to any per-
son lawfully authorized to receive the same
Amy other construction would, il seems to us,
DO violence not only to the plain and uu-
ambiguous language of the statute, but would
In measure defeat the wise and sautary pur-
poses for which it was passed."
Judge Stewart has fixed the trial of the
\ case for Tuesday, July 9Th. 1t may, how
ever. be removed to an adjoining county,
which would cause postponement.