930 ARTICLE 26.

the trial of any criminal case in said courts whenever in the judgment of
the court in which any such case is pending a just regard for the rights of
the accused requires it.

This section and sec. 8, in connection with art. 24, sec. 266, of the public local
laws, held to confer authority upon the court not only to assign counsel but to fix
the counsel fee not exceeding the maximum mentioned in sec. 8. Worcester County
v. Melvin, 89 Md. 40; Anne Arundel County v. Melvin, 107 Md. 536; Charles
County v. Wilmer, 131 Md. 178.

Suit for fee by assignee of counsel appointed under this section. Practice. See
notes to art. 4, sec. 7, of the Md. Constitution. Charles County v. Wilmer, 131
Md. 177.

See art. 10, sec. 21, et seq.

An. Code, sec. 8. 1904, sec. 8. 1888, sec. 8. 1856, ch. 19, sec. 2. 1886, ch. 46.

8. The county commissioners of the several counties and the mayor
and city council of Baltimore shall levy and pay for the services rendered
by any person appointed by the court to assist in the prosecution or de-
fense of any case; provided, the amount paid for such services in any one
case shall not exceed one hundred dollars; and provided, that in no case
tried in any court of criminal jurisdiction in the city of Baltimore shall
any attorney be entitled to demand or receive the appearance fees for de-
fending in criminal cases fixed by law except when such fees are taxed
against and paid by the accused as part of the costs of the case.

County commissioners have nothing to do with the amount of fee, and have no
discretion as to paying it, provided it does not exceed one hundred dollars. Wor-
cester County v. Melvin, 89 Md. 40; Charles County v. Wilmer, 131 Md. 178.
See notes to sec. 7.

Appointment of Auditors.

An. Code, sec. 9. 1904, sec. 9. 1888, sec. 9. 1785, ch. 80, sec. 12. 1888, ch. 447.

9. In all actions brought in any court founded on account, or on which
it may be necessary to examine and determine on accounts between the
parties, the court may order the accounts and dealings between the parties
to be audited and stated by an auditor or auditors to be appointed by such
court, and there shall be the same proceedings thereon as in courts of
equity upon bills for an account, reserving to the parties, however, the
right to a jury trial if demanded.

Proceedings before auditor must be same as in actions of account after judgment
quod computet, is rendered. The defendant may plead; issues may be joined or
demurrers may be filed, which must be certified to court. Issues of fact must be
passed upon by the jury, matters of law, by the court. While auditor may examine
the parties, he has no authority to examine other witnesses. This section held to
have been misconstrued and misapplied. Wisner v. Wilhelm, 48 Md. 10 (decided
prior to the act of 1888. ch. 447). See also Mantz v. Collins, 4 H. & McH. 65.

This section referred to in holding that constitutional right of jury trial is not
infringed by the compulsory appointment of an auditor in an action of law involv-
ing intricate accounts, with a view to his making a report which will simplify issues
for jury. Power to appoint auditor inherent in district court as a trial court. Limita-
tions on right of jury trial. Matter of Walter Peterson, 253 U. S. 308.

Appointment of Surveyor.

An. Code, sec. 10. 1904, sec. 10. 1888, sec. 10. 1827, ch. 44, sec. 1. 1900, ch. 581.

10. In any case pending in any court where it is necessary to lay out
and locate any lands and where, upon the application of either party to