character rule in Maryland

1992We agree and hold that, in light of the evidence against appellant as well as his failure to object to this instruction at trial, the instruction does not require reversal. 4 See Sine v. State, 40 Md.App. 628, 633 , 394 A.2d 1206 (1978) (plain error rule will not be invoked where the instruction was of such a character that if the error had been brought to the court’s attention, the proper clarification could have been made without confusing the jury and any prejudicial effect could have been dissipated).

1992We agree and hold that, in light of the evidence against appellant as well as his failure to object to this instruction at trial, the instruction does not require reversal. 4 See Sine v. State, 40 Md.App. 628, 633 , 394 A.2d 1206 (1978) (plain error rule will not be invoked where the instruction was of such a character that if the error had been brought to the court’s attention, the proper clarification could have been made without confusing the jury and any prejudicial effect could have been dissipated).

1953As was said in Storr v. James, 84 Md. 282 at 290: “An actual enclosure though not necessary to prove possession ... is, when erected by a party relying on a title by prescription, some evidence tending to show the character of his claim.

1930Judgment reversed and case remanded, with co-sts to the appellant. *26 Parke, L, filed the following separate opinion: Issues had been joined on the general issue pleas, so, upon the plaintiff’s refusal to plead further when the court sustained the demurrer to plaintiff’s replication to the defendant’s plea of release, the judgment should have been one of non pros., and the writer concurs with the reversal for this reason, but does not agree with the view of the majority as to the character of the defense permitted on issues joined on plaintiff’s replication. 2 Po&, Pl. & Pr., secs. 360, n. 23

1911Green v. Caulk, 16 Md. 556 ; Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483 ; Bullock v. Hunter, 44 Md. 416 ; Heiskell v. Rollins, 82 Md. 14 ; Richardson v. Anderson, 109 Md. 641 ; Hoogewerff v. Flack, 101 Md. 382 .

1911Green v. Caulk, 16 Md. 556 ; Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483 ; Bullock v. Hunter, 44 Md. 416 ; Heiskell v. Rollins, 82 Md. 14 ; Richardson v. Anderson, 109 Md. 641 ; Hoogewerff v. Flack, 101 Md. 382 .

1911Green v. Caulk, 16 Md. 556 ; Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483 ; Bullock v. Hunter, 44 Md. 416 ; Heiskell v. Rollins, 82 Md. 14 ; Richardson v. Anderson, 109 Md. 641 ; Hoogewerff v. Flack, 101 Md. 382 .

1911Green v. Caulk, 16 Md. 556 ; Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483 ; Bullock v. Hunter, 44 Md. 416 ; Heiskell v. Rollins, 82 Md. 14 ; Richardson v. Anderson, 109 Md. 641 ; Hoogewerff v. Flack, 101 Md. 382 .

1911Green v. Caulk, 16 Md. 556 ; Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483 ; Bullock v. Hunter, 44 Md. 416 ; Heiskell v. Rollins, 82 Md. 14 ; Richardson v. Anderson, 109 Md. 641 ; Hoogewerff v. Flack, 101 Md. 382 .

1906In Stoffer v. Stoffer, 50 Mich. 491 , a wife left her husband with the avowed- purpose never to live with him again.

1903Mr. Poe, in section 562 of his work on Pleading, speaking of the degree of precision required in pleading, says : “ The declaration should always describe the contract for the breach of which the suit is instituted, or the tort for which redress is sought, with such reasonable degree of certainty as will give fair notice to the defendant of the character of the claim or demand made against him, so as to enable him to prepare for his defense ;” and in Gent v. Cole, 38 Md. 110 , this Court said : “ It is one of the first principles of pleading that facts should be stated for the purpose of infor

1895The case of Farwell v. Myers, 59 Mich. 179 ; S. C., 25 Am.

1888Worden, 54 Md., 233 , there is ample authority elsewhere to support either view that may be taken.

1846Sasser and Walker's Exs., 5 G. & J., 102 .