Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1905-02-17
Innocent Violations Of Law.

The Circuit Courts Of Washington and
Somerset counties have recently taken cog
nizance Of the violation Of two laws hereto
fore gone unchallenged. That Of the rattle
referred to by Judge Keedy, of Washington
county, charging the grand jury, will give
surprise to many innocent organizations that
indulge this feature of public entertain.
ment. That Of rewards offered by County
Commissioners for the apprehension Of Grim
inals decided by the Somerset Court will
compel the Commissioners 10 promptly de-
cline to offer rewards, though it might not
always be TO the best interest of the public.
The charge Is given below
judging from the newspapers and from
what has been matter Of general knowl'
edge and observation for some time, there
seems to have been an unusual number OF
articles Of various kinds disposed of by
chance
"rhe scheme employed, which, In princi.
pie, is the same In all cases, constitutes q
species of lottery and is in violation Of the
law.
"Section $50, Article 81, of the Code of
Public Laws of this State says: The courts
shall construe the foregoing provisions re-
lating to lotteries literally and shall judge
all tickets, parts Of tickets, certificates or
any other device whatsoever by which
money or any other thing is to be paid or de-
livered on the happening of any event or
contingency, in the nature of lottery, to
be lottery tickets
ain the case OF Ballock vs.. the State (7S
Maryland, page 81 the Court of Appeals of
this State says: Our statute allows the sale
of nothing which, on the happening of a
contingency, I'm the nature of lottery"
brings pecuniary benefit which would not
be enjoyed but for the chance falling to the
holder. Courts are required by Section 1874
to construe the provisions lIbersly in order
to reach aud suppress the evil, and they are
required to hold anything" TO be lottery
ticket which on the happening Of such event
or contingency in the nature Of lottery
entities the holder to money or property &"
The following is the demurrer in the
Somerset county case:
"rhe plaintiffs sued the Worcester Coun.
ty Commissioners 10 recover q reward they
claimed to have been offered by the defend
ant for information leading to the arrest and
conviction OF the person who burned GER
tain buildings in Worcester county. The
plaintiffs, who are private detectives Of Bal
timore. furnished the evidence which result
ed In the conviction of the criminal, The
defendants demurred 10 the plaintiffs dec
laration, on the ground that the offer Of re
wards by boards of County Commissioners
for the prosecution Of criminals is ultra Utresj
that crime is an offense, not against the
county In which II Is committed, but against
the State; that the people of the particular
county are not more aggrieved than the
people OF any other county; that the au
thority of boa rds of County Commissioners
being limited to that which Is specially or
by implication conferred upon them by stat.
ute or by the Constitution, and having no
such authority In this State, the action could
not lie."
The court sustained the demurrer, and
thus established the doctrine that County
Commissioners in this State cannot offer re.
wards for the prosecution of criminals.-
Messrs. John W. Station and William +.
johnson were the attorneys for the County
Commissioners, and Messrs. Melvin and
Handy appeared for the plaintiffs.