Opinion ID: 2352860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Questions Concerning Procedure.

Text: When the board of appeals answered the petition and appeal of the appellant filed in the circuit court, the appellant demurred to the answer. The court overruled it. The action of the court was proper. The conventional answer did no more than deny the allegations of the petition and appeal and demand strict and legal proof thereof and correctly avers that the findings of the board, absent a showing of fraud, were conclusive on the court. The demurrer  which in substance had simply reiterated and argued some of the reasons previously stated for taking the appeal  was clearly inappropriate in that it did not comply with Maryland Rule 345 (and Rule 301). After the appeal to the lower court had been heard the appellant sought an extension of time for the filing of a memorandum on the law and the board of appeals, in answer to the petition, opposed the extension. The appellant demurred to the answer. This demurrer, since it was likewise impertinent and irrelevant, was also properly overruled. The appeal to the circuit court was set for a hearing at Ellicott City on Tuesday, May 31, 1960, but the appellant, although he was fully aware of the date of trial and that the three-day Memorial Day holiday would begin on Saturday, May 28, did not request subpoenas for the witnesses (all of whom were residents of Baltimore City) he claimed were material to his case until Friday, May 27. When none of the witnesses appeared at the hearing, he moved for a postponement, but the court refused to grant it. Apparently the appellant, in requesting postponement made no effort to comply with the provisions of Rule 527 c, relating to the testimony of absent witnesses, as he might have done if the testimony of such witnesses were material, competent and proper. Since the granting of postponement was discretionary, and no abuse has been shown, we cannot say that the court erred in refusing to grant the motion. With regard to the request for an extension of time within which to file his memorandum on the law, the appellant further contends that it was error for the court to limit the filing time. In the absence of a local rule regulating the time, the matter would be within the sound discretion of the court. Certainly the refusal to extend the time further did not, as the appellant claims, constitute a denial of a fair trial or the right of the appellant to his day in court. The final procedural question concerns the payment of costs. The appellant contends that the appellee should pay them because the case is of great importance to the administration of the law. The claim is not well founded. In the absence of an order of court providing otherwise, the rule is that the prevailing party shall be entitled to the allowance of court costs in the lower court. Rule 604 a; Sinclair Estates, Inc. v. Chas. R. Guthrie Co., 223 Md. 572, 165 A.2d 775 (1960). The same is true with respect to the costs in this Court. See Rule 882 a.