Evening star., 1894-01-24

The Court of Appeals Declares IL ule-
gal to Husk Corn.

The Court of Appeals Declares IL Hle-
gal to Husk Corn.
A case of general interest was decided
yesterday at Annapolis, in which the court
upholds the validity of the law against Sab
bath breaking. The opinion was written by
Judge Boyd. 1t quashes the writ OF error
to the circuit court for Kent county in the
case of John w. Judefind.
Judefind was arrested under a warrant is
sued by justice Of the peace for husking
corn on Sunday. He was tried, convicted
and fined s. and costs in accordance with
article %, section 247. of the code of public
general laws. prohibiting work on Sunday.
He appealed to the circuit court. where he
elected to be tried before the court, and was
again convicted and fined IS and costs. The
case was taken to the court of appeals by
petition in the nature of a writ of error, in
which II was alleged that the law under
which Judeind was convicted is void be-
cause II is in violation both Of the first
paragraph of article IA Of the Constitution
of the United States and of article SO of the
bill of rights, and that the circuit court had
no jurisdiction to try and convict Judefnd.
since the justice of the peace had no juris-
diction.
Attorney General Poe, on behalf OF the
the ground that no writ of error lies to the
court of appeals from the decision Of the
circuit court on an appeal to IL from the
judgment of justice of the peace.
The opinion says: That motion must pre-
vail, il is well settled in this state that
when the circuit court has jurisdiction TO
hear and decide an appeal from a justice of
the peace its decision is final Ii Judefind
desired to contest the constitutionality OF
the law under which he was arrested, and
2 cd fnr
the consideration of this court. he could
have applied for the writ of certiorari upon
the specific ground of the unconstitutional
ity of the law and the consequent want OF
power and Jurisdiction of the justice of the
peace to proceed under it,
Although deciding the case on the one
point. the Sundaw law in question is dis
cussed in the opinion, which says the court
has not the slightest hesitation IN an
nouncins that the law complained of is not
in conflict with the Constitution of the
United States or Of Maryland. There may
be some circumstances under which IL
would be deemed harsh and severe TO pun
ish a man for husking corn ON Sunday, but
IL he defies the laws Of the state o. makes
himself obnoxious to those desiring the
quiet and peace Of this day of rest, he should
expect the machinery of the law TO be put
in molten. Ii the position taken by the
piantfm In error in reference to the law In
question is correct. then the law prohibiting
the sale OF liquor, etc. on Sunday Is un-
constitutional, as would be most. IL not all,
of our laws concerning Sunday. The ten
dency of legislation in this country is to
provide for further rest rather than TO take
away the day of rest that is welcomed by
the industrious and hard-working people of
our land. II the Christian religion is. incl
dentally or otherwise, benefited fostered
by having this day of rest, as IL undoubted-
ly is, there Is all the more reason fo- the
enforcement Of laws that help to preserve it.
While courts have generally sustained Sum
DAY laws as civil regulations. their decisions
"a a a m lass As.vhs
to be In accordance with the divine law as
well human"