Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Johnson, Sappington,
Magraw, Nelson, Thawley, and Ware—16.
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Dent,
Hopewell, Ricaud, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Sellman, Buchanan, Lloyd, Dickinson,
James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Miller, Mc-
lane, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Thomas,
Gaither, Biser, McHenry, Gwinn, Stewart, of
Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood, of Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Da-
vis, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Anderson, Weber,
Holliday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke,
Shower, Cockey, and Brown—53.
So the amendment moved as the 12th section
was rejected.
The amendment offered by Mr. Spencer, as
the 13th section of the report, was then read, as
follows:
Sec. 13. In the trial of all actions hereafter
in the courts of this State, in which matters of
account in bar or set oft are plead as now au-
thorized by law, or which may hereafter be al-
lowed by law, the jury shall find, according to
the merits of the case, either for the plaintiff or
the defendant, as the case may be.
At the suggestion of Mr, BRENT, of Baltimore
city, Mr. Spencer modified his amendment by
inserting after the word "find" in the 11th line,
the words "any balance," and by adding at the
end thereof these words, "and the judgment of
the court shall be rendered according to the
finding of the jury."
Mr. SPENCER demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
—ayes 47, noes 23—as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, Lee, Sellman,
Buchanan, Lloyd, Dickinson, James U. Dennis,
Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Eccleston, Miller,
McLane, McCubbin, Spencer, George, Wright,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Johnson,
Gaither, Biser, Sappington, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart, of Balti-
more city. Brent, of Baltimore city, Sherwood,
of Baltimore city, Ware, Michael Newcomer,
Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Holliday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—47.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakiston, Dent, Hopewell, Donaldson,
Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Crisfield, Williams,
Goldsborough, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Thomas,
Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Da-
vis and Anderson—22.
So the amendment moved as the 13th section
was adopted.
On motion of Mr. BOWIE, the Convention then
took up for consideration the 2d and 3d sections,
which had been passed over informally.
Mr. BOWIE then offered as a substitute for said
sections, the following:
"Sec. 2. The court of appeals shall have ap-
pellate jurisdiction only, which shall be co-
extensive with the limits of the State, and shall
consist of a chief justice and three associate
justices, any three of whom shall form a quo-
rum, whose judgment shall be final and conclu- |
sive in all cases of appeals, and who shall have
the same jurisdiction which the present court of
appeals of this State now have, and such other
appellate jurisdiction only as may be hereafter
provided for by law. The Governor, for the
time being, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, shall designate the chief justice,
and the court of appeals shall hold its sessions
at the city of Annapolis, on the first Monday of
June, and the first Monday of December, in
each and every year.''
Mr. CRISFIELD moved to amend the substitute
by inserting after the word "appeals" in the
fifth line, these words, "but no judgment of re-
versal shall be rendered, except with the con-
currence of at least three of the judges thereof."
Mr. CRISFIELD Your Court of Appeals is
now composed of four judges; and three form a
quorum. The decisions of these will be the de-
cision of one. The judge below has already ex-
pressed his opinion. If the court above should
consist of three, and two of them would be in
favor of overturning the decision of the court be-
low, there would be two above in favor of over-
turning the decision, and one above and one
below in favor of sustaining it. I do not wish
an equal number of judges to overturn a de-
cision, but to require a majority of all. By in-
serting these words, we prevent the case of two
judges overturning the decision which is concur-
red in by two judges.
Mr. BOWIE. That is the effect of it as it now
stands. It takes three to reverse. If there are
two against two, it is an affirmance.
Mr. CRISFIELD. But suppose there are only
three upon the bench.
Mr. BOWIE. Then you would require a unani-
mous decision ?
Mr. CRISFIELD. Certainly I would.
Mr. BOWIE. I think that is rather hard. It
is carrying it too far. A majority ought to be
allowed to affirm or reverse the decision.
Mr. CRISFIELD demandee the yeas and nays,
which was ordered, and being taken resulted—
ayes 26; noes 42—as follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Morgan, Ricaud, Sell-
man, Lloyd, Dickinson, James U. Dennis, Crisfield,
Dashiell, Williams, Hodson, Goldsborough,
McCubbin, Spencer, George, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Gaither, Gwinn, Fiery, Brewer, Weber,
Holliday, Slicer and Smith—26.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Blaki-
stone, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Randall, Buchanan, Hicks, Eccleston, Mil-
ler, McLane, Bowie, Sprigg, Wright, Dirickson,
Jacobs, Johnson, Biser, Sappington, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson. Thawley, Brent, of Balt. city,
Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis,
Kilgour, Waters, Anderson, Fitzpatrick, Parke,
Shower, Cockey and Brown—42.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CRISFIELD then moved to amend the substitute,
by inserting after the word " law" in the
ninth line, the following:
" And in every case decided, an opinion in
writing shall be filed, and provision shall be made |
