
    LUTHER SMITH et al. vs. STATE OF MARYLAND.
    
      Griminal Law — Appeal.
    An appeal having been noted in open court in behalf of all the defendants on the day on which the judgments of conviction were entered, a further written order for appeal and affidavit were not necessary, the only purpose and effect of an affidavit in such cases being to stay the execution of the sentence.
    
      Decided June 26th, 1923.
    
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Briscoe, C. J., and Beall, J.).
    Criminal proceeding against Luther Smith, Seth .Peterson, Ray Prater and Ernest Neely. Erom judgments, of conviction and sentences, said defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    The cause, together with that next preceding, was argued before Boro, O. J., Thomas, Pattisoet, Ureter, Abktets, and Oeetitt, JJ.
    
      Clarence M. Roberts, with whom was Edwin H. Brownley on the brief, for the appellant.
    
      Alexander Armstrong, Attorney General, with whom were Lindsay C. Spencer, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Wilson Ryon, State’s Attorney for Prince George’s County, on the brief, for the State.
   Thomas, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this Court two appeals were docketed from the judgments of tire court below, one by Harry W. White or Harold W. White, as No. 24 Appeals of the April Term, and one by Luther Smith, S'eth Pteterson, Hay Porter (Prater) and Ernest B. Neely, as No. 25 Appeals of the same term, both appeals being in one record. In this case, No. 25 Appeals, a motion has been filed to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not taken within thirty days from the entry of the judgments. But, as we have said in No. 24, the docket entries show t-hat-an appeal on behalf of all of the defendants was noted on the day the judgments were entered. A further written order for appeal and affidavit were not necessary in order to accomplish their appeal, and the only purpose and effect of an affidavit in such cases is to stay the execution of the sentence. Code, art. 5, sec. 80. The motion to dismiss the appeal must therefore be overruled, and for the reasons we have stated in No. 24, the judgments appealed from will be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed, with costs.  