MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                                 181

and rights may be involved. A policy
decision must be made as to whether some
provision for jury trial or transfer to the
circuit court should be made with respect
to such cases, since concurrent
jurisdiction and jury trial provisions are
keyed to a monetary claim. There is a
similar problem under present Art. 26, §
156 with respect to de novo and on the
record appeals.

The derivation of this particular provision
is somewhat obscure. In 1965, the Maryland
State Bar Association Committee on Trial
Magistrates recommended that magistrates be
given exclusive jurisdiction over civil
cases when the amount in controversy did
not exceed $1,000 and that there be a
uniform Statewide procedure for distress.

This was followed by the adoption of former
Art. 53, § 9, which gave the people's
courts and magistrates with civil
jurisdiction exclusive jurisdiction "in all
cases of distress for rent ... regardless
of the amount of rent" involved.

The Maryland State Bar Association 11/20/67
draft of the District Court Act gave the
District Court jurisdiction "in all actions
involving landlord and tenant, distraint,
forcible entry, and detainer". The
subsequent subsection granted exclusive
jurisdiction if the amount in controversy
did not exceed $1,000.

The 12/4/67 draft gave the District Court
"exclusive original jurisdiction ... in
all actions involving landlord and tenant,
distraint, forcible entry, and detainer
regardless of the amount of rent involved".

The 3/19/68 draft contained essentially the
language of the present law. Maryland
State Bar Association documents available
to the Commission, including the Committee
on Judicial Administration's Report of
6/4/68 dealing with the District Court shed
no light on the reasons for the changes in
the drafts or the policy considerations
supporting (or opposing) the present