EVIDENCE. 443

This section referred to in construing art. 93,. sec. 93, and art. 35, sec. 51:
Bogart v. Willis, 158 Md. 401.

Cited but not construed in Hart v. Vogel, 159 Md. 146; Scher v. Becker, 163-
Md. 204.

4.

Provision of this section re refusal of traverser to testify not violated by prov-
ing what he voluntarily testified to at former trial. Henze v. State, 154 Md. 346.

Plaintiff's evidence of wife's misconduct being uncorroborated, disregarded.
Lang v. Lang, 155 Md. 472.

No divorce on husband's testimony as to wife's misconduct before marriage,
unknown to him, unless corroborated; this section does not apply to proceeding
for separate maintenance. Wiegand v. Wiegand, 155 Md. 645.

This section referred to in dismissing bill for divorce—see notes to art. 16,
sec. 39. Proudfoot v. Proudfoot, 154 Md. 586.

This section referred to in holding proof insufficient for divorce a mensa.
Oertel v. Oertel, 145 Md. 178.

Corroboration necessary in suit for alimony; proof sufficient. Silverberg v.
Silverberg, 148 Md. 691.

Corroboration necessary for divorce on ground of abandonment; proof insuffi-
cient. Owings v. Owings. 148 Md. 127.

If this section is applicable to proceedings by wife for separate maintenance,
the corroboration need be but slight, for the nature of the proceeding is such
as to exclude the idea of collusion (unreported case). Engelberth v. Engel-
berth, 159 Md. 700.

Corroboration need be hut slight when whole case precludes possibility of
collusion. Appel v. Appel. 162 Md. 5.

Cited but not construed in Sheehan v. Sheehan, 156 Md. 661; Bowersox v.
Bowersox, 157 Md. 479.

1929, ch. 194.

4A. No evidence in the trial of misdemeanors shall be deemed admis-
sible where the same shall have been procured by, through, or in conse-
quence of any illegal search or seizure or of any search and seizure pro-
hibited by the Declaration of Rights of this State; nor shall any evidence
in such cases be admissible if procured by, through or in consequence of a
search and seizure, the effect of the admission of which would be to compel
one to give evidence against himself in a criminal case.

Where defendant arrested for participation in a lottery business, gave per-
mission to police officer to drive his car to station house, held that papers and
books found on floor of car and token possession of, were not procured by
Illegal search or seizure. Heyward v. State. 161 Md. 694.

Where police officer, suspecting violation of lottery law, entered home of de-
fendant through open door, and without search warrant or warrant for defend-
ant's arrest, took possession of slips of paper, money, etc., found in the room,
held such articles were procured by illegal search and seizure and inadmissible
as evidence under this section. Gorman v. State, 161 Md. 700.

Lottery tickets, delivered without coercion, by defendant to police officer, as
he was being lawfully arrested for possession of such tickets, were not pro-
cured by illegal search and seizure so as to be inadmissible under this section.
Blager v. State, 162 Md. 665.

This section has no application where person at time of arrest was engaged
in the commission of a crime. If misdemeanor is committed in presence of
officer charged with enforcement of the law, he is authorized, without warrant,
to arrest offender and as incident to arrest, to search his person and to seize and
search the immediate and present evidence and Instrument of his crime; selling
intoxicating liquors. Callahan v.. State, 163 Md. 300.

Only those whose rights have been disturbed by illegal search or seizure may
object, under this section, to all evidence procured by Illegal search or seizure;,
telephone conversation may be admissible. Baum v. State, 163 Md. 153.
See art. 27, sec. 285V.