and (at p. 68): "One is not arrested when he is approached by a police officer and merely questioned as to his identity and actions. This amounts to no more than an accosting." Cited in support of the latter proposition were Blager v. State, 162 Md. 664, 665-66, and Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, and 37 Mich. L. Rev. 311, 313. The Cornish case is but one of a number.

Combs can not now complain of a search to which he freely consented. Gross v. State, 235 Md. 429, 201 A.2d 808; Shields v. State, 229 Md. 153, 182 A.2d 348; Lyles v. State, 203 Md. 605, 102 A.2d 291; Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, 88 A.2d 310. In addition to the contentions discussed above, the appellant has apparently requested his counsel to present four additional questions on this appeal: (1) was he denied a jury trial against his will; (2) did the rulings and remarks of the trial judge show that he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial; (3) was he denied a speedy trial; and (4) was the testimony of the complaining witness unworthy of belief.

A defendant cannot complain of a search to which he freely consented. Shields v. State, 229 Md. 153, 182 A.2d 348 (1962); Lyles v. State, 203 Md. 605, 102 A.2d 291 (1954); Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, 88 A.2d 310 (1952); Reed v. State, 197 Md. 540, 79 A.2d 852 (1951). We think the case of Payne v. State, supra, is closely in point and controls the question before us.

It was further held that the lottery slips had been lawfully seized and were admissible in evidence against him. In Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, there was an accosting not essentially dissimilar from that in the case before us and the Court relied on the Blager case in finding that there was credible evidence from which the trial judge could have found that the accused voluntarily handed over the lottery tickets and money to the police, and that because their possession had become visible to the police, the offense had been committed in their presence. See also State v. Gulczynski (Court of General Sessions of Del.), 120 A. 88, 89, where the suspect was asked on the street by a policeman what he had in a package and answered "liquor", and the arrest that followed was held valid.

If the arrest was lawful, the search and seizure at the police station was proper. Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, 88 A.2d 310. Evidence obtained as a result of a search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is admissible. Kershaw v. State, supra; Robinson v. State, supra; Callahan v. State, 163 Md. 298, 162 A. 856.

It is generally stated that a police officer, who sees the commission of a misdemeanor and lawfully arrests the offender, does not need a warrant to search an automobile under his immediate possession and control at the time of his arrest. An illustration of the rule is seen in Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, 88 A.2d 310, where a police officer saw a man walk toward a parked car with yellow lottery slips in his hand and pass them into the car to the appellant who was sitting in the driver's seat, and shortly afterwards the appellant handed lottery slips and a bag of money to one of the officers. In that case the Court held that the officers had the right to search the car, and therefore the lottery slips found on the floor of the car were admissible in evidence.

The weight of such evidence is a question for the jury or the trial judge sitting without a jury. Blager v. State, 162 Md. 664, 666; Smith v. State, 191 Md. 329, 341; Lucich v. State, 194 Md. 511, 516; Hubbard v. State, 195 Md. 103, 106-107; Reed v. State, 197 Md. 540, 543; Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, 88 A.2d 310, 311. Appellant further contends that there was not sufficient evidence in this case to prove that the one and one-half pints of whiskey which he had in his possession were held by him for the purpose of sale.

However, on cross-examination he admitted that he did not obtain any of these slips and could not see what was written on them. In Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128, 88 A.2d 310, the officer saw a man walk toward Robinson, who was in a parked automobile at a distance of about twenty-five or thirty feet from the officer, and pass what he believed to be yellow lottery slips to Robinson who was seated in the driver's seat. The officer admitted that at that distance he could not read anything on the slips but from his past experience he knew that they were lottery tickets.

Id. at 666. To like effect, see Robinson v. State, 200 Md. 128 (1952). These earlier decisions involve non-custodial admissions, in response to accusatory inquiries, which provided the basis for probable cause and, as we noted, supra, they predate decisions requiring that a stop be based on reasonable articulable suspicion.