Before any action was had by the Convention
on the amendment,
The PRESIDENT announced that the hour had
arrived for taking up the order of the day.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the unfinished order of yesterday, being
the report No. 13, submitted by Mr. BOWIE, as
chairman of the committee on the Judiciary.
The question pending before the Convention on
yesterday, being on the amendment offered by Mr.
THOMAS to the 14th section, by striking out in the
3rd line, the words "the chancery court."
On the question being propounded,
"Will the Convention adopt the amendment?"
it was
Determined in the affirmative.
The 14th section was then adopted as amended.
Mr. MORGAN moved to strike out the 15th sec-
tion of the report.
Mr. M. observed that it merely provided for
an Orphans Court in the city of Baltimore, which
had already been provided fur in an article offered
by the gentleman from Washington, therefore
this was rendered unnecessary. For those rea-
sons he moved to strike out the section.
The question being taken, the 15th section of
the report was stricken out.
Mr. DORSEY moved that the Convention recon-
sider their vote on the 11th section, for the pur-
pose of enabling him to offer the following amend-
ment, to come in at the end thereof:
"Provided that the want of jurisdiction in the
court, in respect to the amount claimed or re-
covered, shall not be produced by the plea of the
statute of limitation) or by payments, discounts,
or set off, claimed by the defendant at the trial of
the cause,"
Mr, DORSEY said that he was absent from the
Convention when this subject was last before it,
As he understood the eleventh section of the bill
as now amended, it read in this wise : " There
shall be established for the city of Baltimore one
court with common law jurisdiction, to be styled
'the court of Common Pleas,"' &c. Now, the
object he had in view, in rising, was to move to
reconsider the vote of the Convention on the
eleventh section, a part of which he had just
read, in order to enable him to amend it in the
manner he had indicated. Suppose a man to sue
another on a note for one hundred dollars, and if
the party did not recover that amount, he would
be non-suited. That was the inevitable result
If he sued his debtor before an inferior tribunal
on a promissory note for five hundred dollars, he
having paid four hundred and fifty dollars of the
amount, yet the receipt being in possession of
the debtor, who fails to produce it, and of the
payment the plaintiff has no evidence other than
that of his own endorsement on the note, of the
amount received by him, to which the debtor
gives no sanction. What must be the consequence?
Why, the plaintiff must be non-suited
from want of jurisdiction in the inferior court
The creditor then goes to the court of Common |
Pleas, and he sues the debtor on his note for five
hundred dollars. What would be the defence set
up? The receipt for four hundred and fifty dol-
lars, which would result in a non-suit there, and
thus no recovery could be had in either court.
But suppose the claim to be an open account for
ten thousand dollars, to more than nine-tenths of
which was subject to a plea of limitations, but
he had no reason to believe that such a defence
was designed. He sues, of course, for the ten
thousand dollars-the plea of limitations is relied
on and sustained for want of jurisdiction, he is
consequently non-suited for want of jurisdiction
in the court. The same results may follow if
the defendant has account in bar, which he may
assert as and how he pleases.
He could not recover in any court. If, how-
ever, he went to the superior court, perhaps he
might recover a jdugement; but in the inferior
court, he could not possibly recover, if his claim
was less than $100. There might be $99 due
him-justly due him. He had no possible means
to know what the defence might be. He did
not know that the plea of limitation would be
set up. The right to teh set-off may have been
acquired after suit brought. He could not give
credits unless he could prove them. The defend-
and then puts the plaintiff on his proof of payment
which he is unable to establish. The plaintiff,
with a just claim, is utterly remediless. Sup-
pose this case occurred. I held a man's note
for $500. He had an account against me for
$50 or $100. I cannot compel him to sue me.
I cannot compel him to rely upon this set-off. I
must sue him for the amount of my claim. If
the, I sue him in your court of common pleas,
he comes in and exhibits his claim, if he wishes
to non-suit me-shows him his account in bar.
The plaintiff then warrants him before a magis-
trate; the defendant relies on no set-off; the
plaintiff must be nonsuited. And by this sort of
management, the debtor would cheat the credi-
itor, and it was impossible for him to recover.
In order to do away with this injustice, he had
drawn up the amendment he had offered. It ap-
peared to him indispensably necessary that
something should be done.
The question being taken on the motion, it
was determined in the negative
Mr. DORSEY then demanded the yeas and nays,
which were not ordered.
Mr. CRISFIELD moved to reconsider the vote
of the Convention on the 12th section of the
report, for the purpose of offering as a substitute
therefor the following:
"There shall be established for the city of
Baltimore, a court which shall be styled the
Superior Court of Baltimore city, which shall
have jurisdiction over all suits where the debt
or damages claimed, shall exceed the sum of five
hundred dollars, and the said court within its
jurisdiction, shall be vested with all powers now
held and exercised by Baltimore county court,
sitting as a law court; and the said court shall
consist of two judges. And whenever a plaintiff
or plaintiffs in the said court recovers less than |
