|
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 36
June 18
p. 650
|
2.dly Because Plaintiffs are by this Bill abridged in their Rights
of Removal and Election to sue in the Jurisdiction where Justice is
best to be obtained, and this upon a kind of inverted principle of
Law, in favor of offending Defendants to the prejudice of already
injured Plaintiffs. An Election and Right which the Wisdom and
Justice of the Laws, as well of the Parent Country as of this Prov-
ince, have hitherto allowed and countenanced in favor of Remedy.
For altho' the Bill leaves some Liberty to sue in the Supreme Court,
and Professes a Right of Appeal, yet the Supreme Court is to be
excluded all original Jurisdiction for such Claims as are most usu-
ally sued for, as well by the People in general, as by the Merchants
trading here in particular, that is instead of Sums under £20 St.g the
Supreme Court is now forbid to hold plea of all Sums under £ioo St.g
or under 30,000 pounds of Tobacco, equal to £250 St.g as Tobacco
has Sold for many years preceeding this year, whether it be by
originating the Suit in the Provincial Court, or by Removal to it
from the Courts below; excepting only that the Defendant may elect
to remove it but the Plaintiff cannot: which appears to me unequal,
and I fear is therefore unjust. Plaintiffs however who receive
Injuries, altho' they should live at one Extremity of the Province
and the Defendants at the other, must attend their Suits at the other
Extremity amidst the Connections and highest Influence of the De-
fendants, for all Sums not exceeding the above mentioned. How
inconvenient and even impracticable this must be to Commercial
People, as well as others who have such Demands in many different
Counties, very Common in this Country, needs not be mentioned.
Nor is it uncommon for Principal and Securities to reside in several
Counties. Upon the plea of Non est Factum to a Bond so Circum-
stanced the Plaintiff cannot have his Bond in all the Counties of
the several Defendants Residence, and is therefore liable to be
Nonsuited in all but one of those Actions — pay Costs and lose his
Security. 'Tis true an Appeal is declared to be due from the Judge-
ment of the County Court. But there cannot, by the Constitution be
|
|
|
|
p. 651
|
an Appeal from the Verdict of a Jury: and from the Judgment of
the Court there cannot be an Appeal with Success, unless there
chance to be Error apparent on the Record: and how seldom this
happens is Well known. Go that I conceive this seemingly grpat
Privilege of Appeal under this Bill is of but little Advantage, opposed
to the disadvantageous Condition in which Plaintiffs are now placed
of being forced to sue below for large Sums without the Privilege
of removing their Causes to have a better — a more unbiased Jury in
the Supreme Court; altho' Defendants may do it or not at their
Pleasure under this Bill.
3.dly Because Inconveniencies to Plaintiffs, I am persuaded will be
much greater under the present Bill than what it Professes to avoid
|
|
