will be confined to that city alone? Have they
not a right to vote against it, when you allow
them only a judge in a circuit of one hundred
and fifty miles? I had a plain line of duty before
me, and I pursued it in making the motion I
have submitted, and shall not be driven from it
by threats from any quarter. I withdraw the
motion to postpone, and renew the demand for
the previous question.
The previous question was seconded, and the
main question ordered, viz:—"Will the Conven-
tion reconsider their vote of yesterday, striking
out the first paragraph of said section ?"
Mr. STEWART of Baltimore city, moved that
the question be taken by yeas and nays, which
being ordered, appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Donaldson, Dalrymple,
Howard, Bell, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Col-
ston, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Chambers of
Cecil, McLane, Spencer, George, Shriver, Biser,
Annan, McHenry, Magraw, Carter, Thaw-
ley, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood of Baltimore city, Ware, Michael, New-
comer, Brewer, Holliday, Fitzpatrick, Parke,
Shower, Cockey and Brown—35,
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Bund, Brent of Charles, Mer-
rick, Buchanan, Dickinson, Dashiell, Williams
Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Bow-
ling, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Gaither, Sappington, Stephen-
son, Nelson, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Harbine, Davis, Kilgour, Waters, An-
derson, Weber and Slicer—47.
So the Convention refused to reconsider their
vote.
The 11th section was then read, as follows;—
There shall be established for the city of Baltimore,
one court with common law jurisdiction,
to be styled the " Court of Common Pleas,"
which shall have civil jurisdiction in all suits
where the debt or damage claimed shall not ex-
ceed five hundred dollars,"
Mr. STEWART, of Baltimore city, moved to
amend the section by adding thereto the follow-
ing proviso;
"Provided that where the plaintiff or plain-
tiffs shall recover less than the sum or value of
five hundred dollars, the said plaintiff or plain-
tiffs shall not be allowed, but at the. discretion
of the court may be adjudged to pay costs."
Mr. DORSEY said, he moved to strike out "five
hundred" and insert "fifty." It appeared to
him that the amendment is unreasonable. A
man in his own judgment may have a just
claim against an individual for one thousand
dollars, and sues him in this court. It is de-
termined, however, by the jury, most unwisely
and unjustly, that less than five hundred dol-
lars is due, he then must lose his costs. He
considers that the injury he has received
amounts to three times the sum; but if the
jury happens to differ with him in opinion; if
by some technical principle of the law he is
defeated, though he has a manifestly just claim |
for $499, yet he must lose the case, and be bur-
dened with all the costs, not only on his side,
but perhaps on the other. He certainly would.
lose his own costs, and perhaps have to pay the
costs of the other party. It is unreasonable.
I do not care where the principle was taken
from. it was once tried in Maryland, but he
thought it was changed, and we adopted the
principle which is adopted in most States, that
if a party claims more than $500, or whatever
sum is necessary for the jurisdiction of the
court, he could get judgment, and was not
made to pay the costs. He thought that was
just. By this amendment we would place the
plaintiff in a condition where the greatest in-
justice may be done him. He thought it ought
to be rejected.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I move to
postpone the subject. The Convention will no-
tice that the eleventh section fixes the limit of
the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas to
$500, It is very obvious that we would be but
allowing parties to carve out a jurisdiction for
themselves, by simply raising their claims in the
declaration to more than $500. Therefore, the
party who desired to get into another court, and
have a jurisdiction above the one to which his
claim would entitle him, would increase the
amount of the claim. To avoid this evil, this
amendment is offered, which says, in substance,
that this court shall not have jurisdiction of any
case to award costs to the party who falls be-
low its jurisdiction. They may award a debt.
when the recovery shall not exceed the limit of
the law. In other words, if a verdict is unre-
versed, and it shall award to him a sum less than
the jurisdiction of the court, what is to be the
result? He will still have judgment, even for
that amount, but still he shall bepunished in the
costs. Is not that just? It is merely to enforce
the line of demarcation. The gentleman from
Anne Arundel says this thing has been tried
in the county courts, but he is mistaken. I
humbly differ with him. I do not know what
the law is in Howard county.
Mr. DORSEY. I do not state what the law
now is; I said how it formerly stood.
Mr. BRENT. It is a mere penalty upon the
party who presses a suit in the wrong jurisdic-
tion. If a party brings an action in a county
court, and recovers less than $100, when the
justices of the peace have a jurisdiction of $100,
what is the result? Judgment of non suit.
The party is dismissed from the court without
any judgment in his favor, he is bound to pay
all the costs; and begin a new suit before a jus-
tice of the peace for the debt. Thus he loses.
the case, and is obliged to commence the suit
de novo. This proposition is to avoid that injus-
tice.
I think it will, in a measure, protect the juris-
diction of these courts ,from evasion and abuse.
It is all predicated upon the idea that this court's
jurisdiction is not to exceed $500, I withdraw
the motion to postpone.
Mr. GWINN. I renew it. It seems to me ex-
traordinary that the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del should object to the construction of a clause |
