10                                        LAWS OF MARYLAND                            [Ch. 2

"other courts" to make rules not
inconsistent with Court of Appeals rules is
not necessarily the same as the power of a
chief judge to make rules. The District
Court is excluded from the general
operation of this subsection because
rule—making power there is vested in the
chief judge, not in the court.

Because of the definition of "court" in
§1-101(c), this subsection does not apply
to orphans' courts, although Art. 26, §27
does so apply. The statutory rule-making
power of the Orphans' Court is transferred
to Art. 93, §2-102. The Court of Appeals
also has a constitutional rule—making power
with respect to Orphans' Court;
Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 18a.

As noted, Art. 26, §§1 and 27 are both
proposed for repeal. It may well be that
both have already been substantially
superseded by Md. Rule 1.f. & g.; see
Bastian v. Watkins, 230 Md. 325, 187 A.2d
304 (1963); except for the orphans' courts
provisions of §27.

Art. 26, §2 is unnecessary, in view of the
statutory grant of rule—making power of
§1-201(b). The problem of "recess" is no
longer important; see Md. Rules 19 and
1205. In addition to provisions of local
rules, dismissal (other than during trial)
is covered by Md. Rules 530 and 54 1.

SEC. 1-202. CONTEMPT OF COURT.

(A) EXERCISE OF CONTEMPT POWER.

A COURT MAY EXERCISE THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT OR TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
COMMANDS IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE MARYLAND
RULES OR MARYLAND DISTRICT RULES.

REVISOR'S NOTE: Art. 26, §4 purports to limit the
power of a court to inflict summary
punishment for contempt. One of its
earliest versions seems to have been Ch.
450, Laws of 1853. In Ex parte Maulsby,
13 Md. 625 (1859) the Court of Appeals held
that courts had inherent power to punish