|
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate L. Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Mr. Mudd, in
Baltimore City we have the Towson court
and we also have the housing and rent
court.
Under the definition of functional, for
instance, if the district court were created
in Baltimore City, would the assignment
of the housing cases pertaining to tenants
and the assignment of cases pertaining to
rent matters, be assigned under a func-
tional system to one particular court?
I am trying to get the meaning of func-
tional.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor,
could the Chair restate your question?
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, the
Chair believes that Delegate Taylor is
asking you whether if this provision rec-
ommended by the Commission, or by the
Committee, were in the constitution, would
the court or someone else have the au-
thority to create in the district court func-
tioning in Baltimore City a rent court, or
a similar division?
Is that your question, Delegate Taylor?
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: I am trying
to find out whether the Court of Appeals
could create this by itself.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could the Court of
Appeals create a rent court division of the
district court in Baltimore City? Is that
your question?
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: The answer to
that question is yes, as a functional di-
vision of the court, the district or superior
court to which the jurisdiction in that area
was so assigned could do so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: That would
combine the rent matters along with the
problems of tenants, sanitary problems of
tenants within the same court, or could
they make a distinction and assign them
to another division of the district court?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: If all of those re-
quirements were within the jurisdiction of
|
that particular court, say the district court,
then a functional division of the district
court could be created to handle all those
problems you have mentioned.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: In other
words, this is a functional matter. It is not
a legislative matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: We think so, com-
pletely.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes
Delegate Willoner to speak in favor of the
amendment.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Mr. Chair-
man, I just wanted to answer some com-
ments made by Judge Sherbow. I agree
with everything he has said. There is noth-
ing in this amendment that would fore-
close what he proposed.
All this does is share the responsibility.
In other words, this is concurrent jurisdic-
tion. The chances are that 99 per cent of
these matters will be handled by the court.
It is only where there are certain areas
where the legislature may act to nudge the
court into action, and if the court does not
like it, the next day it can change the rules,
and go back to what it wanted to do any-
way. However, it is the principle of putting
this absolute power without appeal in the
hands of the Court, without any check at
all, that is objectionable in this particular
provision as it is drafted by the (Com-
mittee .
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question? Delegate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to this amend-
ment. I think we are really talking about
two different things. I think Delegate
Willoner is really talking about power. I
would suggest that this amendment was
placed in the majority report for not only
Baltimore City, but for the several coun-
ties who have a tremendous amount of legal
work which does not fall in any one neat
little package. It almost stands to reason
that places like Baltimore City, Mont-
gomery County, Baltimore County, Anne
Arundel County, and in the future we do
not know how many counties, will be im-
possible if you cannot create functional
divisions.
Now, in Baltimore City I would guess
that when all of the lower courts were
created, and they were created by consti-
|
