DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. 15

v. Glenn, 54 Md. 599; Lancaster v. State, 90 Md. 215. Cf, Banner v. State,
89 Md. 225.

As a general rule, for any criminal offense for which a person is liable
to infamous punishment, a trial by jury may not be denied; confinement in
the penitentiary is infamous punishment. The right of parties charged with
capital or infamous crimes is more extensive than in civil controversies or
in prosecutions for misdemeanors of minor importance. Meaning of the
term "law of the land." Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent.
What does not amount to a "waiver" of the constitutional right to a Jury
trial. The act of 1896, chapter 128, providing that in certain counties
justices of the peace should have concurrent jurisdiction with circuit courts
for the trial of petit larceny, if neither the traverser nor the state's attor-
ney when before the justice, prays a jury trial, held unconstitutional in so
far as it conferred jurisdiction upon justices of the peace in cases of petit
larceny. Banner v. State, 89 Md. 225.

The act of 1880, chapter 198, providing for the seizure and sale of vessels,
etc., violating the "oyster" law, and for the trial of the captain, etc., before
a justice of the peace, held not to violate this article or article 23. The
Ann, 8 Fed. 925.

Indictment.

The indictment need not allege that the law under which it is had is in
operation in the county where the law is alleged to have been violated,
since it is the offense which is charged and not the law which is alleged to
have been violated. Indictment sustained. Slymer v. State, 62 Md. 239.

Where a law provides a heavier punishment for a second violation of the
liquor laws than for a first offense, in order to convict of such second
offense, the indictment must aver that the offense charged is a second one.
The act of 1908, chapter 179, providing that persons convicted a second
time of the violation of the liquor laws of Baltimore county should pay a
heavier fine than for a first offense and that the court may determine the
fact as to the prior conviction by consulting the court docket, is unconsti-
tutional. The information guaranteed by this article need not be conveyed
by word of mouth nor by any other means than a copy of the indictment
or charge, and the traverser must be informed of the whole charge. Goeller
v State, 119 Md. 63.

Both the constitution of the United States and of Maryland (as shown
by the fifth amendment of the former and by this article) use the terms
"indictment, presentment and charge" interchangeably. The presentment
or charge should be full and definite; indictment held invalid because too
vague. State v. Keifer,90 Md. 173.

Generally.

When a traverser is indicted for murder in the technical language of the
common law, he is charged with a crime which includes all circumstances
of aggravation, and as all minor degrees are included in the major, he may
be convicted of the inferior as well as of the higher grades of murder. The
act of 1809, chapter 138—see article 27, section 329 et seq of the code of
1904—which divided the crime of murder into degrees, held not to violate
this article, although it permitted a conviction of murder in the first degree
on an indictment which did not aver a willful, deliberate and premeditated
killing. Davis v. State, 39 Md. 384.

This article referred to in deciding that where the docket shows that
the verdict was regularly found "guilty of murder in the first degree," but
it is proven as a matter of fact that the verdict was merely "guilty." with-
out finding the degree, a new trial must be had. Ford v. State, 12 Md. 549.

The portion of this article providing that the accused shall have the right
to be confronted with the witnesses against him does not exempt all evi-
dence except oral evidence of witnesses produced in court. Documentary
evidence, held proper. Johns v. State, 55 Md. 359.