94 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND [Art. 4]

either of the parties to such Presentment or Indictment that such party
cannot 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 satisfactorily 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 Present-
ment or Indictment to be transmitted to some other Court having juris-
diction in such cases 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 this Constitution to sit in any 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 Indict-
ment had been originally instituted therein; and the General Assembly
shall make such modification of existing law as may be necessary to regulate
and give force to this provision. ¹

Non-jury cases.

Where a case is submitted to the court without a jury, the plaintiff is entitled to
a non-suit as in other cases; hence though a judge, in ruling upon testimony, remarks
incidentally that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover, the plaintiff is still entitled
to take a non-suit at any time before verdict. Hall v. Schuchardt, 34 Md. 18.

Issues sent by the orphans' court to a court of law constitute a "cause" within the
meaning of this section, and hence may be submitted to the court without a jury.
Houston v. Wilcox, 121 Md. 100.

The first clause of this section can not be regarded as restricting the jurisdiction
of the court or as conferring upon it a special jurisdiction; hence the right of appeal
is undoubted. Tinges v. Moale, 25 Md. 484.

A judgment rendered by a court without a jury, where it does not appear that there
was any agreement or assent by both parties waiving a jury trial, should be stricken
out (changed by a local law in Baltimore city). Desche v. Giles, 56 Md. 137.

Any party capable of being sued and of appearing in person or by attorney, may
assent to the submission of a case to a court without a jury; hence such assent of an
attorney for a lunatic is binding. Cross v. Kent, 32 Md. 584.

This section referred to in upholding certain rules of the circuit court for Prince
George's county dealing with jury and non-jury cases. Gambrill v. Parker, 31 Md. 6.

Removal of cases.

Right of removal exists in every action or suit at law that is pending in any court
of original jurisdiction if party suggests in writing, under oath, that he cannot get fair
trial. State v. Cobourn, 169 Md. 111.

The act of 1874, ch. 94, providing that the order of removal might be struck out
unless the party making the suggestion pays the cost of the record within sixty days
after such order and causes the record to be transmitted within the same period, held
unconstitutional under this section. Intent of this section; it has been liberally con-
strued. Hoyer v. Colton, 43 Md. 422. And see Knee v. City Passenger Ry. Co., 87 Md.
632.

Where a first trial miscarries because of the failure of the jury to agree, the case
may be removed at any time before the jury is sworn at the second trial. Where a
case has been removed, it will not be remanded because the affidavit for removal was
made by the next friend of the infant suing in the name of the state; a next friend
is a "party" within the meaning of this section. Deford v. State, use Keyser, 30 Md. 196.

Since the amendment of 1874, ch. 364, a party making affidavit of removal has not
the right to elect that the case shall be sent to some court in a different circuit; the
matter is within the discretion of the court from which the case is removed. The re-
moval of a case from the court of common pleas to the superior court of Baltimore
city is a removal "to some other court" within the meaning of this section. De Mur-
giondo v. Frazier, 63 Md. 95; Weiskittle v. State, use of Samuel, 58 Md. 155.

This section confers a discretion upon the court to which application for removal is
made as to the court to which the case shall be sent. Discretion held not to have
been abused. Blick v. Cockins, 131 Md. 628.

This section gives the circuit court no power to remove causes pending on appeal.
Charles County v. Wilmer, 131 Md. 181.

An equity cause may not be removed to another equity court under this section.
Act of 1920, ch. 425, sec. 322A, directing the removal of equity cases in Baltimore city,
is in violation of sec. 32 of this art. 4. Wilmer v. Savings & Bldg. Assn., 141 Md. 241.

¹ Thus amended by act of 1874, ch. 364, ratified November, 1875.