below committed error in Maryland

1987Nor did the court commit any error in granting the defendants’ second prayer, which enunciates the proposition that if death was caused by tubercular meningitis or other disease not produced by the operation, the defendants are not liable.” 70 Md. at 171 , 16 A. at 384 .

1987Nor did the court commit any error in granting the defendants’ second prayer, which enunciates the proposition that if death was caused by tubercular meningitis or other disease not produced by the operation, the defendants are not liable.” 70 Md. at 171 , 16 A. at 384 .

1972The appellant’s reliance on Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 , is misplaced.

1969Billmeyer v. State, Use of Whiteman, 192 Md. 419 , 64 A. 2d 755 , and does not mean that the rules of evidence may be ignored. * * *. [First and third emphases added.] “Under Maryland Rule 413 a 2 defendant may put plaintiff’s deposition in evidence as part of the defendant’s case, so far as the deposition is admissible and relevant. * * (Emphasis added.) “However, we need not decide for the purpose of this case whether or not the court below committed error in not permitting counsel for the plaintiffs to read plaintiffs’ depositions in rebuttal since the plaintiffs called, without objection,

1969Billmeyer v. State, Use of Whiteman, 192 Md. 419 , 64 A. 2d 755 , and does not mean that the rules of evidence may be ignored. * * *. [First and third emphases added.] “Under Maryland Rule 413 a 2 defendant may put plaintiff’s deposition in evidence as part of the defendant’s case, so far as the deposition is admissible and relevant. * * (Emphasis added.) “However, we need not decide for the purpose of this case whether or not the court below committed error in not permitting counsel for the plaintiffs to read plaintiffs’ depositions in rebuttal since the plaintiffs called, without objection,

1917Newbold v. Heyward, 96 Md. 247 ; Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 154 .

1914The offence is clearly and sufficiently set out in the several counts of the indictment, in the language of the Act of 1902, and we find no objection to the sufficiency or validity of the indictment as thus framed, in these four counts. *Page 680 The fifth and sixth counts are based and founded on Chapter 444 of the Acts of 1910, and it is admitted, that this last named Act is invalid, under the decision of this Court in State v. Rice, 115 Md. 317 .

1913In Maguire v. State, 47 Md. 485 , JUDGE ALVEY, in delivering the opinion of this Court, said, the authorities are clear to the effect that in order to justify a sentence for a second offense, it must appear by the verdict that the jury have found the party guilty of such second offense.

1912In Hollowell v. Miller, 17 Md. 305 , it was said, a judgment below, coming up by appeal, is prwna facie correct and cannot be reversed by the appellate Court, unless they are *73 convinced it is erroneous.

1909In the view we take of this case, it will not be necessary for us to consider all the questions raised on the record, because we are of the opinion, that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the defendant’s third prayer which is as follows: “The defendant prays the Court to instruct the jury that there is no legally sufficient evidence, under the pleadings, entitling the plaintiff to recover and therefore the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.” *87 The settled principle in this State applicable to the extent of the liability of the bailee, in a case of bailment for hire,

1909In the view we take of this case, it will not be necessary for us to consider all the questions raised on the record, because we are of the opinion, that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the defendant’s third prayer which is as follows: “The defendant prays the Court to instruct the jury that there is no legally sufficient evidence, under the pleadings, entitling the plaintiff to recover and therefore the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.” *87 The settled principle in this State applicable to the extent of the liability of the bailee, in a case of bailment for hire,

1909In the view we take of this case, it will not be necessary for us to consider all the questions raised on the record, because we are of the opinion, that the Court below committed an error in rejecting the defendant’s third prayer which is as follows: “The defendant prays the Court to instruct the jury that there is no legally sufficient evidence, under the pleadings, entitling the plaintiff to recover and therefore the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.” *87 The settled principle in this State applicable to the extent of the liability of the bailee, in a case of bailment for hire,

1898(Decided June 28th, 1898.) It appears by the record of the former appeal of this case (reported in 83 Md. 123 ) that this suit was originally brought in the Court below on the 13th of January, 1890, and that the ward for whose benefit this action was begun attained his majority, which occurred in the year 1879.