CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 1287

If a person passes through this state while going to another state in
obedience to a summons to attend and testify in that state or while return-
ing therefrom, he shall not while so passing through this state be subject
to arrest or the service of process, civil or criminal, in connection with
matters which arose before his entrance into this state under the summons.

1937, ch. 124, sec. 560D.

660. (Uniformity of Interpretation.) This sub-title shall be so in-
terpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uni-
form the law of the states which enact it.

1937, ch. 124, sec. 560E.

661. (Short Title.) This sub-title may be cited as "Uniform Act to
Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without a State in Criminal
Proceedings".

1937, ch. 124, sec...3...

662. If any provision of this sub-title or the application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held invali'd, such invalidity shall not affect
other provisions or applications of the sub-title which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions
of this sub-title are declared to be severable.¹

Indictments—Selling Liquor.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 561. 1912, sec. 504. 1904, sec. 446. 1890, ch. 429, sec. 288A.
1890, ch. 492, sec. 288A.

663. In any indictment for the unlawful sale or disposition of spiritu-
ous or fermented liquors or lager beer, it shall not be necessary to specify
the particular variety, provided the indictment sets forth an unlawful
sale or disposition of intoxicating liquor, but the defendant, on applica-
tion to the State's attorney before trial, may obtain a statement of the
particular variety of liquor expected to be proved.

This section referred to in sustaining indictment for violation of local liquor law for
Washington County. Evidence. Weller v. State, 150 Md. 281.

The right to demand a bill of particulars in a prosecution for unlawful sale of liquor
does not cure the duplicity in the indictment, which charges defendant with some acts
disjunctively, any one of which constituted a crime, and with other acts which may or
may not have constituted crimes. Thomas v. State, 173 Md. 676.

Indictment for sale of "distilled alcoholic liquor," in violation of local law of Harford
County, held sufficient under this section. Hill v. State, 174 Md. 149.

Indictment under act of 1890, ch. 568, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, ex-
cept cider by maker thereof not to be drunk on, the premises in Annapolis, held valid
though it did not name the kind of liquor traverser is accused of selling, nor negative
cider. See notes to sec. 620. Howes v. State, 141 Md. 547.

This section is constitutional and valid. Keifer v. State, 87 Md. 564.

This section referred to in sustaining indictment for violation of a local law for
Harford County relative to sale of liquor. Curry v. State, 117 Md. 590.

See sec. 560, et seq.

Indictments—Violation of City or Town Ordinances.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 562. 1912, sec. 505. 1904, sec. 447. 1900, ch. 131, sec. 291C,

1929, ch. 245.

664. In every indictment or warrant for the violation of any ordinance
of any incorporated city or town of this State or of the Board of County
Commissioners of any county of this State or of the Special Taxing Area

¹ Sec. 2, ch. 124, acts of 1937, repealed all laws inconsistent therewith.