desire is this, and I did not intend to say a word
in reference to it. I am not prepared to draw
an article such as ought to be engrafted in the
constitution amidst such confusion as this, I
would give the city three judges. If she requires
more—and can show that she requires more—
I will give her four judges. Two of these
judges shall have civil common law jurisdiction,
and one of them shall have common law juris-
diction with chancery jurisdiction combined
with it. I would apportion these subjects of
jurisdiction among these judges, whether they
.have two or three. If three, I would give them
a common law jurisdiction, a superior court,
and common law jurisdiction, and equity juris-
diction. Then I would constitute the third judge
a criminal judge, and would invest him with all
criminal jurisdiction, except capital cases, and
these I would give to the superior court, which,
I think would have time to discharge this duty.
I would beg leave to call the attention of gen-
tlemen who represent the city of Baltimore, to
another idea. I would make it obligatory upon
the Legislature to give them a mayor's court,
with a recorder, which exists in every city of
the Union of any magnitude. In that court, they
could discharge their criminal jurisdiction, and
relieve their civil judges from any improper
burden in the discharge of their duties. Then
I would defer to the liberal proposition of the
gentleman from Somerset, investing in the Le-
gislature the power of increasing these judges
when in their opinion the increase of business
required more judges for its prompt discharge.
These are my general views. If the gentle-
men from Baltimore city do not themselves pre-
sent a proposition or agree to some one among
themselves, I will endeavor, at the proper time
to offer a proposition such as I have indicated.
I am not at all ambitious of appearing upon the
journal as the mover of the proposition.
The said 11th section was then adopted as
amended.
The 12th section of said report was then read.
Mr. STEWART, of Balt, city, moved to amend
the 12th section by inserting after the word
"dollars," in the third line of said section, the
following:
"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. STEWART. The single object of this
amendment is to guard against the consequences
of entering suits in the superior courts which
should have been entered in the court of common
pleas. A man may go into this court, thinking
he has a claim of over $500, and may recover
only $499, Without this provision, there would
of course be a nol. pros. All the trouble and ex-
pense of that investigation would amount to no-
thing; and a new suit must be instituted in the
other tribunal. My object is to enable the
plaintiff, in such a case, to obtain the benefit of
the verdict of the jury. But if the court think
that there has been an attempt to fabricate a ju-
risdiction, as a penalty therefor they may sen- |
tence him to pay costs. The 20th section of the
act of 1789 contains the very words we have
adopted here.
Mr. DORSEY moved to amend said amendment
bystriking out these words "not be allowed, but
at the discretion of the court may be adjudged
to pay costs;" and substituting in lieu thereof
the following:
"Be allowed his costs or adjudged to pay costs
at the discretion of the court."
Mr. DORSEY. I wish to leave the whole subject
to the discretion of the court. A defendant
disposed to take advantage of a plaintiff, may
subject him to enormous expense, without any
reasonable expense whatever. I have a claim
of $10,000, for instance, composed of different
items. To sue for that, I must join them all in
one action. Perhaps most of them are barred
bylimitation, if the defendant sees fit dishonestly
to present such a bar. If I sue for less than
$500, the defendant may come in and show that
I am entitled to more. If I sue for more, he
pleads the limitation. Or suppose I have a claim
against him of $10,000; and he has claims against
me of $9,500, but which I do not know to be in
his hands. If I sue in the superior court, he
pleads the set off, and reduces the amount to less
than $500. I cannot sue in the lower court be-
cause I cannot compel him to plead the set off.
It appears to me that the court should have discretion
ever the whole subject of costs. I think
some protections is due to the plaintiff as well as
to the defendant..
Mr. GWINN remarked that there was not peculiar
hardship attaching to this case, above that
which had resulted from the action of the law
as it had stood for sixty-two years. He would
prefer to abide by the experience of sixty-two
years, rather than to the reflections suggested
this morning.
The question being taken upon the amendment,
resulted, upon division, yeas 30, noes 30—
so the amendment was not agreed to.
The question then recurred on the adoption
of the amendment as offered by Mr. Stewart of
Balt. city.
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. MORGAN moved further to amend the 12th
section by adding at the end thereof the following:
"And shall have and exercise all the powers
and jurisdictions now exercised by Baltimore
county court, sitting as a court of equity."
Mr. BRENT, of Balt. city, moved that the
question be taken by yeas and nays, which being
ordered, appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells,
Weems, Bond, Brent, of Charles, Merrick, Bu-
chanan, Bell, Chandler, Lloyd, Colston, James
U. Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Chambers, of Cecil,
Miller, McLane, McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer,
George, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan,
Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Thaw-
ley, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Har- |
