Baker v. State

Decided June 15, 1806

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1806-06-15

<p>A Faro Table set up in a house, not a dwelling-house, out-house, or place occupied by a tavern-keeper, retailer, fee. is not an offence under the act of 1797, ch. 130, which directs that “no Fa-' - ro Table,” fee* “shall be set up, kept or maintained in any dwelling-house, outhouse, or place occupied by any tavern keeper, re- ; tailei,” fee.</p> <p>Whether or not ; the court can refuse to permit the . counsel in a cri>ni« nal case from arguing to the jury against the court’s construction of an act of assembly, after the court had been called upon to give a construction to the act?</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1980

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1806-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Chase, Ch. J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court, declaring that the act of 1797, ch. 110, only applied to dwelling-houses, out-houseo, and places occupied by tavern-keepers, &.C. No opinion was given as to the question, whether or not the court below were right in refusing to permit the counsel for the traverser to argue to the jury upon the construction which they had given to the act of assembly, in their direction to the jury, on the prayer which was made by counsel. The chief judge said he was prepared to give his opinion that the counsel had no such right, afler he had called upon the court to give a coast-ruction to the act, and the court had done so.

¶2JUDGMENT REVERSED.