|
in every county, when I will say eighty or
ninety per cent of the people that ever see
the enforcement of law go before the lower
court?
DELEGATE MUDD: We do not say it
is. We leave it to the legislature to pre-
scribe the districts and the number of dis-
trict court judges.
THE CHAIRMAN: Auy further ques-
tions, Delegate Malkus?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Yes, sir. Why
do you discriminate then in favor of the
superior court against the district court
when in my opinion both are equal?
DELEGATE MUDD: We did not dis-
criminate. We are providing for a new
court when we provided the district court,
and in our wisdom we are leaving it to the
wisdom of the legislature to say how many
district courts and how many district court
judges there should be. We are mandating
in this constitution what the legislature in
its wisdom has heretofore provided, namely
for a superior court judge in every county.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Yes, sir.
My next question is this: Is it not true
that we are not creating a new court; we
are just reorganizing a court that is al-
ready in existence?
DELEGATE MUDD: You mean by that
the district court?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Yes, sir.
DELEGATE MUDD: Substantially, yes.
DELEGATE MALKUS: My question
again to you is this: Why are you saying
each county shall have a circuit court or a
superior court, which very few people see,
and a resident judge, and not have a
people's court judge as we know it, or
magistrate as we know it, or we will know
it under the district court? /
DELEGATE MUDD: Because the pres-
ent Constitution and present law requires
a superior court judge in each county and
we are leaving to the wisdom of the legis-
lature to determine whether there should
be a district court judge in every county.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further ques-
tions?
Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman,
did you in answer to Delegate Chabot's
|
question state that under section 5.01 the
legislature could not create a tribunal to
hear automobile injury cases.
DELEGATE MUDD: If you define tri-
bunal as a court, I would say yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Are you suggest-
ing that if we call it something other than
a court they could create such an agency?
DELEGATE MUDD: There are existing
facilities called courts that are not exer-
cising a judicial power.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Would a court or
tribunal that would hear personal injury
cases, automobile injury cases, come under
section 5.01, judicial power?
DELEGATE MUDD: Offhand, I would
say yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: How would that
differ from a court or tribunal created by
the legislature to hear personal injuries
connected with employment?
DELEGATE MUDD: If I understand
your question, it would be identical; ^he
legislature would then be attempting to
set up a separate court to try the same
type of case within the same jurisdiction
that it had previously prescribed to the
superior court.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Would this arti-
cle preclude the Workmen's Compensation
Commission from functioning?
DELEGATE MUDD: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Don't they hear
personal injury cases that are work-related
and work-connected?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, but not auto-
mobile cases. You spoke of automobile cases
a while ago, I thought.
DELEGATE MASON: I was trying to
throw an analogy between automobile in-
jury cases and work-connected cases.
DELEGATE MUDD: The answer is that
this article would not prevent the Work-
men's Compensation Commission from con-
tinuing to function.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
|
