HELMS v. FRANCISCUS. 553

of all are governed, the understandings of the people are enlight-
ened, and the peace of the community is preserved. By an open
course of judicial proceeding, in the language of the country, it
may be readily understood, if there be a fault, whether it be in the
law, or in the administration of the law; if it be in the law, it
may be amended and the judge sustained; if in the judge he
may be held responsible, and the law be applied and enforced by
a more skilful and worthy agent. It was evidently upon these
considerations, that those English legislative enactments required
the laws to be administered in the English language. Hence it is
not merely as a matter of convenience to the court; but as a
means of giving due publicity to judicial proceedings; and in
order, that all suitors may know what is said for or against them,
that all the pleadings, proofs and proceedings of the court must
be instituted, or translated into the English language.

In Maryland, as well before as since the statute of 1731, all
legislative enactments and judicial proceedings were expressed in
English, and in no other language; (f) and therefore, by the
common law of the state, independently of any positive act of the
legislature, it may be regarded as a duty of all the courts of jus-
tice to have all their proceedings put into English before any judg-
ment is pronounced upon the matter in controversy. And for the
purpose of having a correct translation made of the deposition or
document it may be confided to a fit, competent, and sworn trans-
lator, (g)

Ordered, that Charles T. Flusser be, and he is hereby appointed
to make and return, on oath, a full and correct translation of the
said depositions as prayed by the foregoing petition.

On the 10th of February, 1830, Mordecai L. Flagler filed his
petition in this case, in which he stated, that the defendant Lewis
Helms had, by a certain instrument of writing, promised and
obliged himself to pay to him the sum of $1,200 out of the sum
which he might recover in this suit; by virtue of which the peti-
tioner had and claimed to have a lien, to that amount on any sum
which might be decreed to Helms and wife; and prayed that it
might be ordered to be paid to him accordingly.

The defendant Lewis Helms by a petition, not on oath, filed on

(f) Kilty's Rep. 249.—(g) Smith v. Kirkpatrick, 1 Dick. 103; Belmore v. An-
derson. 2 Cox, 288; Fauquier v. Tynte, 7 Ves. 292; Atkins v. Palmer, 6 Cora. Law
Rep. 453; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 373; 2 Fowl Exch. Pra. 75,135.