1682 PLEADINGS, PRACTICE AND PROCESS AT LAW. [ART. 75

and in all cases of presentments of indictments for offenses which are or
may be punishable by death, pending in any of the courts of law in this
State having jurisdiction thereof, upon suggestion in writing, under
oath, of either of the parties to said proceedings, that such party cannot
have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the same may
be pending, the said court shall order and direct the record of proceed
ings in such suit or action, issue, presentment or indictment, to be
transmitted to some other court having jurisdiction in such case for
trial; but in all other cases of presentment or indictment pending in
any of the courts of law in this State having jurisdiction thereof, in
addition to the suggestion in writing of either of the parties to such
presentment or indictment that such party canuot have a fair and
impartial trial in the court in which the same may be pending, it shall
be necessary for the party making such suggestion to make it satis-
factorily appear to the court that such suggestion is true, or that there
is reasonable ground for the same; and thereupon the said court shall
order and direct the record of proceedings in such presentment or indict-
ment to be transmitted to some other court having jurisdiction in such
eases for trial; and such right of removal shall exist upon suggestion in
cases when all the judges of said court may be disqualified, under the
provisions of the constitution, to sit in any such case; and said court to
which the record of proceedings in such suit or action, issue, present-
ment or indictment may be so transmitted, shall hear and determine the
same in like manner as if such suit or action, issue, presentment or
indictment had been originally instituted therein.*

When right of removal appplies.

This section has no application to cases in equity, or in the orphans'
court- Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. 367.

The right of removal can only he exercised in courts having original Juris-
diction. Geekie v. Harbourd. 52 Md. 401; Cooke v. Cooke. 41 Md. 307: Hos-
hall v. Hoffacker. 11 Md. 303.

The right of removal does not apply to proceedings instituted under the
statute for the forfeiture of chartered franchises. Belair Club v. State, 74
Md. 300.

This section does not apply to issues framed in insolvency proceedings at
the instance of a creditor. Trayhern v. Hamill. 53 Md. 91; Michael v.
Schroeder. 4 H. & J. 227.

Up to what time a case may he removed.

The right of removal must be exercised before the trial commences, and
an amendment of the declaration does not affect such right: but the fact
that one trial has already been had ending in a disagreement by the jury,
does not defeat the right of removal. Cooke v. Cooke. 41 Md. 307; Sittig v.
Birkestack. 38 Md. 161; Deford v. State. 30 Md. 190.

A case may bo removed at any time before the panel of jurors is completed
by being sworn. McMillan v. State, 68 Md. 309; Price v. State. 8 Gill. 297
Cf. Griffin v. Leslie. 20 Md. 19.

Where a judgment by default has been entered, and nothing remains to be
done but to assess the damages or determine the amount thereof, the case
can not be removed. Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Rutledge. 41 Md. 372.

*This section is identical with article 4. section 8. of the Maryland constitution,
save that by the last clause of the constitutional provision power is given the
general assembly to modify the existing law so as to regulate and give force to
such provision.