
    COURT OF APPEALS, JUNE TÉRM, 1821;
    Queen vs. The State.
    ¿S1 neg-ro'1™-' íT.c5;híeioSS SnhheJS&TSi lieV^omiSbie Showing- her “he m“f¡hty wi”«aj!e“ slave,» is sumtiie act «r 1796,
    FoveWor appa^ rent on the face of thh record in such criminal cases, as the “¿ct”'o? 117«1 ch.tr, s. o, there be an appeal.
    «ima^snot aílowi «j in enmmtii ea
    impS'the”er<3-rroi.hisuwn w«-
    Appeal from á judgment in Arine-Arundel county court/ ':l a criminal prosecution'. The indictment charged, that the traverser “on the,” &c. “did assist a negro woman named Nelly, the slave of a certain James Anderson, of,’7 &c. “m eloping and running away from the said James Anderson, by accompanying her a considerable distance, arid showing her the road by which she might escape, thereby depriving her master, the' said James Anderson, of the service ol the said negro slave, contrary to the torm of the ac$t of assembly m such case made aftd provided, and against the peace, government and dig-nitv, of the state.95 ® 1 ’ _ ... - ,® , . , 'I he traverser pleaded not guilty; and at the trial a witness x J Prot*uce“ 011 Par^ °* gbite, who proved, that on (jie night tlie negro left the service of her master, the wit-o O > mjss-and the traverser were together on their way to- the ]10use 0f Qne A. L; that in going they met with the slave mentioned in the indictment, and other slaves; that they accorapanied them some distance, but did not sleep in the woods with them. After the examination of the said witness was closed, the district attorney, in behalf of the state, called another witness, and by her offered to prove, that the above witness had declared to her some time previously, that he did sleep in the woods with the said negroes. To this testimony the counsel for the traverser objected, and insisted, that as the said witness was produced >vy the state, any declarations which he had made out of court, wereiiot admissible testimony on the part of the state. Rut the court, [C7i«se, Ch. J. and Riilgely, A. J.] were of opinion, that the testimony was admissible on the part of the state to impeach the credit of said witness, and permitted the evidence to be given. The traverser excepted. The jury having found the traverser guilty, his counsel moved the court in arrest of judgment—1. Because the act with which the traverser was charged was not forbidden by the law upon which the prosecution was grounded. And 2. Because of the want of certainty in the description of the offence. The county court overruled the motion, and rendered judgment upon the verdict against the traverser for the penalty prescribed by the act of 1796, ch. 67. Fx-omthis judgment the traverser appealed to this coui-t, whex-ethe case was argued before Buchanan, Eaiile, Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
    
      Magruder and T. B. Dorsey, for the appellant,
    x-efen-ed to the acts of 1796, ch. 67, s. 19, and 1785, ch. 87, s. 6. Gumming vs. The State, 1 Harr. Johns. 840. The Stat. of Westminster, 2nd (AS Bdiu. I.) ch. 31. 1 Bac. Ab. tit. Bills of Exceptions, 528, and note. Jacob’s L. D. tit. 7m-plead. Balter vs. The State, decided in this court at June term, 1806. 1 Thill. Evid. 213, 215. Bull. N. P. 297. 3 Bac. Ab. tit. Indictment, 560, (note;) and The-King Vs. Philipps, 6 East, 464, 472, 473, 474.
    Williams, (assistant attorney general,) and Ridout, (district attox-ney,)
    for the State, cited Peake’s Evid. 135. The State vs. Norris, 1 Hayw. Rep. 439. 2 Inst. 427. 1 Thill. Evid. 213, 215. 1 Chitty’s G. L. 622. 1 Bac. Ab. 528. Tidd’s Pr. 786. Willes’s Rep. 535, and note; and, McNally, 325.
   Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The court are of opinion, that the indictment in this case is sufficient, and they affirm the judgment of the court below. This being a question of law apparent on the x-ecord, the party was authorised to appeal by the act of 1785, ch. 87, s. 6.

A bill of exceptions is not allowed in criminal cases, no such privilege was given by the common law, and the statute of Wesminster does not embrace it. It is evident from the language of that statute it was intended to apply to civil cases only,

The ms* of 1785 does not • give a hill of exceptions ■ in file criminal cases therein enumerated. Before that act, if' error appeared on the record, it could be carried to the court -of appeals only by a writ of error; this was attended, in many cases, with expense and inconvenience, to remedy which, the legislature gave tire party complaining an election to carry up the case either by writ of error or appeal, and this is the only effect of that act of assembly.

In the case of Baker against The Stale of Maryland, the propriety of allowing a bill of exceptions in a criminal case, was not considered by the court: it passed sub silentio, and therefore is not an authority in this ease.

The question contained in the bill of exceptions is not regularly before the court, and they can only say, if a-similar point had been presented to them, they would have. ^Iven a different decision.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.-  