Case Name: The State against Michael Jenifer Stone, Esq. Chief Justice, and George Dent and George Lee, Esqrs. Associate Justices of Charles County Court
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1792-10
Citations: 3 Md. 115
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State against Michael Jenifer Stone, Esq. Chief Justice, and George Dent and George Lee, Esqrs. Associate Justices of Charles County Court.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 3
Pages: 115–117

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1792.
The State against Michael Jenifer Stone, Esq. Chief Justice, and George Dent and George Lee, Esqrs. Associate Justices of Charles County Court.
THE Attorney-General, on the 20th of September, 1791, issued out of the general court office, a writ of certiorari, directed to the chief justice and associate justices of Charles county court, for the removal of a criminal prosecution depending in the said counry court against one Francis Thompson, for murder, returnable to the general court, at the October term following; on which day the said chief justice and associate justices, caused a proceeding to be returned to the general court, with the said writ of certiorari; by which it appears that the said writ was produced to the said justices on the part of the state, to the allowance of which the counsel of the prisoner objected, assigning as reasons,
1st. That the said certiorari appears to have been issued in vacation without the fat and signature, or either £>f them, of a judge.
2d. That the said certiorari does not appear to have been issued in term time, by order of the general court, on motion for that purpose.
3d. That the attorney-general of Maryland, ex officio, Las no authority to direct the issuing a writ of certiorari to remove the record of criminal proceedings on an indictment for murder depending in a county court.
4th. That the record and proceedings in any county court of this state on an indictment for murder, cannot be removed by certiorari, at the instance of the state, unless in pursuance of the act of 1790, c. SO.
3th. That the certiorari produced is informal.
The justices of the county court thereupon refused to allow the certiorari, but proceeded with the trial.
Whereupon the Attorney-General moved the general court, “ that the justices of Charles county court show cause why an attachment of contempt should not issue against them, for refusing to allow a certiorari, issued on behalf of the state of Maryland, to remove an indictment for murder, against Francis Thompson, then depending in their court, which certiorari was produced to the said court j and for proceeding to the trial of the said indictment after the said certiorari was so produced.”

Opinion:
The general court ordered a summons against the said justices, to show cause, &ci which accordingly issued on the 6th of March, 1792. Upon the return of the said summons, the chief justice appeared on behalf of himself and his associates, and the general court " adjudged that the certiorari, mentioned in the proceedings aforesaid, issued properly and legally, and ought to have heen obeyed by Charles county court; and that for their disobedience of the said state's process, and their proceedings after the delivery thereof, they are guilty of a contempt of the state's process. It is therefore adjudged and ordered by the court, that attachment issue against the chief justice for said contempt^ returnable the next term."
An attachment accordingly issued the 19th of June, 1792, and upon the return of the said attachment, the chief justice appeared in proper person, and the associates appeared by Philip B. Key, their attorney, and, upon hearing their allegations, the general court fined the chief justice twenty shillings, current money, and fined each of the associate justices twenty shillings, current money, and costs, &c.
The chief justice and associate justices prayed an appeal to the court of appeals; but the general court refused to grant the prayer.