Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Lee,
Donaldson, Brent, of Charles, Bell, Chandler,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Colston, James U.
Dennis, Crisfield, Williams, Chambers, of Ce-
cil, Miller, McLane, Spencer, George, Wright,
Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Ste-
phenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Thawley,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Kilgour, Brewer, Anderson, Weber,
Holliday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Cockey
and Brown—45.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Blakis-
tone, Dent, Chambers, of Kent, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Sellman, Weems, Bond, Howard,
Buchanan, Dashiell, Hicks, Goldsborough, Ec-
cleston, Phelps, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling,
Dirickson, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Ware, John
Newcomer, Davis and Shower—32.
So the amendment, as amended, was adopted.
Mr. THOMAS moved to reconsider the vote of
the Convention on the amendment offered by
Mr. Dorsey this morning to amend the amend-
ment offered by Mr. Stewart, of Baltimore city,
to the 12th section, by striking out all after the
word "shall," and inserting inlieu thereof these
words:
" Be allowed his costs or adjudged to pay
costs at the discretion of the court."
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
Mr. THOMAS. So long as the Presiding Offi-
cer permits members to offer amendments mere-
ly for the purpose of speaking; it is impossible
for any one to understand the course of business.
We cannot know what amendments are moved
in good faith, and what to hang a speech upon.
There is an abuse existing in the county courts,
under an act of Assembly, where the language
used is similar to that here employed. It has been
decided by Frederick county court, that if a
suit for damages in certain cases is brought in
that court, and the party plaintiff claims in his
declaration more than one hundred dollars in
order to bring the case before that court, al-
though the verdict shall be but ten dollars, the
plaintiff recovers the verdict and all his costs.
Cases are sometimes brought in that court for
the purpose of bringing heavy costs upon the
defendant. He had himself defended a party
who had cut down a tree worth fifty cents,
when the damage was claimed over one hun-
dred dollars; the verdict was for less than three
dollars; the costs exceeded three hundred dol-
ln such a case, if the court had discretionary
power, they would not have allowed costs.
That is what I desire in this case—to give the
descretion to the court.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore, moved to postpone.
The object of his colleague was to compel suit-
ors to bring their suits in that jurisdiction where
they really and properly belonged, and not to
allow them to create a jurisdiction for them-
selves by arbitrarily placing the claim higher
than the jurisdiction of the inferior court. The
The mode of fixing the jurisdiction was the
amount of claim. The Supreme Court of the
United States had settled this construction, |
under similar acts of Congress, looking at the
declaration to see whether a case should properly
come before that court. The object of the
amendment was not to turn the man out of court
when he had recovered less than the claim, but
to prevent the entering of suits in the wrong
court.
Mr. DORSEY said that he differed very much
from the gentleman from Baltimore, (Mr.
Brent.) A man believing himself entitled to
five hundred dollars could sue in the superior
court. If the court should determine that he
was entitled to less, he would suffer a wrong ill
losing his costs unless the amendment were
adopted. Again, if a defendant holds the plain-
tiff's note for two hundred dollars, and the
plaintiff holds the defendant's for six hundred,
suit must be instituted in the superior court,
when the note being brought in as a set off,
would reduce the amount below five hundred
dollars and the plaintiff would lose his coats. If
he should sue in the inferior court, the set off
could not be presented, and the case would be
ruled out. In either case, therefore, he must
lose his costs and be subject to unavoidable in-
convenience and expense. The only way to
avoid doing injustice in such cases would be to
adopt the amendment now under consideration.
The amendment was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the adoption
of the 12th section, as amended.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, demanded the
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and being
taken, resulted—ayes 62, noes 18—as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Bond, Brent
of Charles, Merrick, Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Colston,
James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Chambers of
Cecil, Miller, McLane, Sprigg, McCubbin,
Bowling, Spencer, George, Wright, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Thawley, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Kil-
gour, Brewer, Waters, Anderson, Weber, Hol-
liday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Cockey and
Brown—62.
Negative—Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Wells, Randall, Weems,
Dashiell, Williams, Fooks, Jacobs, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Balt, city, Brent of Balt. city, Sher-
wood of Balt city. Ware, Davis and Parke—18.
So the 12th section, as amended, was adopted.
Mr. MORGAN moved to strike out all of the
13th section after the 5th line.
The amendment was agreed to,
The 14th section was read, as follows :
Sec. 14. The Court of Common Pleas shall
have jurisdiction in all appeals from magis-
trates' decisions in the said city, and the said
appeals shall be made to the said court. And
the Chancery Court shall have jurisdiction in
all applications for the benefit of the insolvent
laws of this State, and of the administration of
the estates of insolvent debtors, and the super-
vision and control of the trustees thereof. |
