party who wished to delay it was allowed to
take testimony before a commissioner. The
case has been delayed in this way day after
day, a great number of witnesses having
been examined, until now that injunction has
been lying for months and may lie for months
longer before it can be tried. I think, there-
fore, it is better to have all witnesses come
before the judge of the court of equity as
they do at common law and give in their tes-
timony there, so that the judge can observe
the manner of the witness, hear his cross ex-
amination and keep out all improper ques-
tions and answers. I think that will not
only promote justice, but will tend very
much to save time. A case may be tried be-
fore the judge of a court of equity in one or
two days, when the same case before a commissioner
would occupy, in the taking of
testimony, several weeks, if not months.
Lawyers who are constantly employed in
business will not find it possible, perhaps, to
appoint more than one day in a week, some-
times not more than cone day in two weeks to
take testimony before the commissioner. And
you must suit the convenience of both lawyers,
and the witnesses halve to be examined in this
tedious way. Every word must be written
down; every answer must be proponded in
writing; every question must be reduced to
writing. One or two witnesses are ex-
amined in a day, or one hut partially ex-
amined, and then comes an adjournment
over for a week, perhaps two weeks. A long
case may in this way occupy months where
one of the parties is disposed to delay, or
where it may not suit the convenience of
panics to examine the witnesses right
straight through, and the very same case in
a court of equity might not occupy more
than a day or two. And I think the advan-
tage of seeing the witnesses while under ex-
amination, and the having the examination
properly conducted, and rapidly conducted
as in other cases, will lead to a saving of
time and promote justice, besides being a
saving of expense. In a suit at common
law, say involving $500, a man brings his
witnesses before the court and has them ex-
amined at once before a jury. In equity a
case involving the same amount requires you
to go before a commissioner with all this de-
lay, yet in the one case as in the other it may
be important to have the witnesses before the
tribunal that is to determine the case. I
think it will lessen the expense, be a saving
of time, and promote justice, to adopt this
provision. I find it in the constitution of
New York, and I understand it has been
found to be very beneficial in its effects there
Mr. SANDS. I would like to call the ear-
nest attention of the members of this body
to the proposed amendment and the objects
which it will really attain. I think there is
no question but that our present system is de-
ficient in this; that it causes great delay and |
vast expense. For instance, generally the
person appointed a commissioner to take' tes-
timony is not a professional man, and even
if he is, he cannot decide, for he has not the
power, upon the competency of a witness or
the admissibility of his testimony, and no
matter what irrelevant questions maty lie put
to a witness all you can do is to except to
them. And I have known many cases where
parlies who were irresponsible for the costs,
in order to compel the opposing parties to
compromise, have gone on increasing re-
cord until the testimony in the case was al-
most as much as the Bible, and the ends of
justice have been entirely defeated. Yon
might go there day after day, have A, B, C,
brought in as witnesses, of whom the most
irrelevant questions will be asked, spun out
to interminable length, all written down and
put upon record, you objecting to them on
account of their utter irrelevancy. , and the
commissioner replying, "I am no judge of
that mailer; put it down, and the" answer to
it," and then you enter your exception.
I say I have known many such instances.
I call to mind now one case where the pur-
poses of justice we're entirely. defeated, be-
cause the party defendant was advised by his
counsel that he better settle and pay the de-
mand than have more eaten up in the costs of
the suit; and he did so. And I say that it
ought to be taken out of the power of par-
ties thus to defeat the ends of justice. I had
a case: A wife had petitioned for sepeartion
and alimony. The husband in that case is
bound to pay the costs, no matter whether
the petition is granted or not. I, myself, sate
taking testimony in that case for weeks, and
the record would make such a one as I do
not suppose one man in a hundred gets
to see. Then I had to advise the party, be-
cause he would have to make payment of the
costs in the end, to make the best settlement
he could. She did not care, her counsel did
not care, which way the suit went as far as
the costs were concerned, and it was evidently
their purpose to force him to a settlement in
this way. And our system at present toler-
ates this abuse.
If we adopt this amendment then the testi-
mony is taken before the court, and all these
evils are met. The judge would at once ex-
clude irrelevant testimony, and would confine
it to proper issues, and within proper bounds.
This is certainly a great abuse, and I think if
we can by such a change in our system as
would be made by the adoption of this pro-
posed amendment cure these abuses, we will
have done the State of Maryland great ser-
vice.
Mr. MILLER. The legislature has full control
over this matter; if there is any abuse exist-
ing the legislature can correct it at any time
it sees fit. There is no necessity for putting
this in the constitution, for if that is done,
and it is found to work badly, it cannot be |
