a judgment against a man from a knowledge
of his personal character.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I am aware that this
matter was left very loosely by the former
constitutional convention. It was supposed
by everybody that jurisdiction in replevin
matters, and in mechanics' lien matters, un-
der $500, was conferred upon the court of
common pleas; and for years where the
claim of the mechanic who filed the lieu was
under $500, be filed it in the court of com-
mon pleas. Then somebody became affected
with an uneasy doubt, and for a long time
they recorded them in both courts; and after
a long time a case was brought up to the
court of appeals, and they decided that the
superior court had jurisdiction, and that the
court of common pleas had not; and then for
the first time they ceased to file them in the
court of common pleas. It was I think full
half the time from the adoption of the constitution
to the present time, before that deci-
sion was obtained.
Replevins also took the same course. In
many cases jurisdiction was entertained and
the cases were decided in the court of com-
mon pleas before there was an appeal which
ousted them from their jurisdiction. Then,
of course, a large number of cases on the
docket had to go by default. I should be
glad to see this freed from all doubt. One
of these is called the superior court, and it
was supposed there was to be some little su-
perior learning, some better qualifications
upon the bench of that court to which is
given the jurisdiction of larger matters, in one
particular class of cases or in all. We might
gay that they might take original jurisdiction
in all cases of mechanics' liens where five dol-
lars were involved, and from that up, and thus
send them all to the superior court. Any-
where from five to five hundred dollars this
court has jurisdiction; but if you say that it
shall only have jurisdiction in replevin cases
up to one hundred dollars, I do not see the
propriety of it. I think if there is any rea-
son for dividing the jurisdiction it should be
divided by the same line with regard lo
everything.
Mr. STIRLING. My colleague has already
said that we have put so much upon the
court of common pleas that no mortal man
can discharge the duties, and I see no reason
for giving them still more.
Mr. THOMAS. The court of appeals has al-
ready decided the case, and the duties of the
superior court are just as ascertained and dis-
tinct now as they would be if we put it into
the constitution. This leaves it just where it
is, and there is not a lawyer in Baltimore
who does not know which court has jurisdic-
tion in all lien cases and all replevin cases
over and above one hundred dollars.
The question being taken on the amend-
ment, no quorum voted. |
Mr, SANDS moved a call of the house, but
the motion was not sustained,
The question being again taken, the amend-
ment was adopted,
No further amendment was offered.
The next section was read as follows :
"Sec. 30. The circuit count of Baltimore
city shall have all the jurisdiction and au-
thority heretofore exercised by line criminal
court and the circuit court of Baltimore city,
or which may hereafter be prescribed by law ;
and the judges shall apportion and distribute
the business of their court in such a manner
as shall best facilitate the despatch of busi-
ness and promote the ends of justice."
Mr. THOMAS submitted the following
amendment.
Strike out all after the word " shall " in
the first line, and insert the following :
"Have jurisdiction concurrent with the
superior court of Baltimore city in all cases
in equity, in cases arising under the act to
direct descents and its supplements, and shall
exercise all the power that is now or may he
hereafter conferred by law; provided, said
court shall not have jurisdiction in applica-
tions for the writ of habeas carpus'
Mr. STIRLING moved to amend the amend-
ment by adding " in cases of persons charged
with criminal offences."
Mr. THOMAS accepted the amendment,
Mr, STOCKBRIDGE. This amendment differs
entirely from the printed amendment, and 1
can hardly see the effect of it from hearing
it read.
Mr. THOMAS. After I drew up the amend-
ment, which was printed, I consulted the act
of 1853 which organized the present circuit
court, and I found that section two, which
confers jurisdiction upon the circuit court,
says that the said circuit court shall have
concurrent jurisdiction with the superior
court of Baltimore in all cases of equity, in
cases arising from the act in relation to
habeas corpus, and generally such as have
heretofore been conferred upon the chancel-
for of the fifth judicial circuit. The only
alteration I have made in it is to take away
from the circuit court jurisdiction over writs
of habeas corpus, which I do not consider
properly belonging to that court, and which
frequently embarrass that court. I know,
myself, that frequently applications are made
to the judge of that court in the absence of
the judge of the criminal court, upon writs of
habeas corpus, and the prosecuting officer has
been made to go into that court to try these
cases, thereby postponing highly important
equity cases then on trial, on account of the
peculiarity of the law which gives to habeas»
corpus cases the privilege of being heard
first. That was my reason for taking away
from this court this jurisdiction. I accepted
the amendment of my colleague' to leave the
court jurisdiction over writs of habeas cor-
pus in others than criminal eases for this rea- |
