Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-01-12

Remarks Of Mn. CHANDLER, in the House of Dele
gates, IN the discussion Of the BILL giving to the Su-
PeTiOr Courts concurrent Jurisdiction tcih The County
and COrPordti0n Courts, IN certain actions.
MIR. SPEAKER:-Wcrc L TO say that did not feel an
interest in the passage of this BILL should that
which is not true. Ii is the only prOfegc which have a,
yet introduced TO the notice of this House. IL has coil ID
itself around my heart and excited my warmest sympa-
thes in its favor Although feel a deep interest in It's
passage, can assure gentlemen have morbid sensi-
bities upon the suhcct-bu the contrary that
rect legal taste has prompted to the measure The
law delights in uniformity and consistency because the
law uniform and consistent in all IFS parts and operations
AS a system, this IS certainly so, though occasionally
particular feature may present different aspect and then
is for the Legislature TO restore il TO its ORIGINAL lowell
The subject which ain about bring TO your no
dce, IL one, think, of unnatural dcormty, which, trust
will be the pleasure OF this House modify and amend
In all arguments, Mr.. Speaker much depends on the
distinct enumeration ofhe proposition TO be dscussed and
before venture further will that do not purpose
to interfere in any manner with the criminal jurisdiction
oil the County Court with the oOie of its civil bust
but only portion Of it, Who.oeveri familiar with
the practice OF our Inferior Courts knows that its business
is divided into Appeal, Motion Action causes In re-
laion to the two FIRST II is not my desire produce any
change, but only in Actions, that contemplate TO give TO
the Superior Courts OF Law and Chancery Of
common law, concurrent jurisdiction with the County and
Corporation Courts. AT present the Superior and Interior
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction ia all matters i'm Chan
Gerry II an individual claims title to real estate, he has
his choice, by writ of Right Dover Eecmcn TO 20 in
to the other court at his pleasure. SO if he has title
to personal property lie may it in either court by
action Of Detinuc or Trover and il he concciyes himself
aggreyed by any torous injury TO his real personal
estate to his character he has the option OF the Superior
or County Court in which TO bring his action Of cspass
u ct drmis, qtdTe eldsn pgit aud the case TO re-
cover damages for the wrong sustained In fact, in all
actions &c dcct0 the Superior and County Courts have
concurrent jurisdiction, without reference 10 the amount
of damages TO be recovered But in actions Of debt cove
nant accounts, and upon the for breach Of PROMISE
Unless the amount due equal fifty dollars the plaintiff
IS excluded the Superior Courts. This is
y and call upon those who may choose reply me,
state the why is, that individual who claims
c TO real or personal estate Of less value than fifty
dollars, who has sustained damages 20 less than
that sum, by attack upon his property or cfarac-
ter is permitted IN either Court when if he has
denccd in the solemn form known TO the ay-by HE
seal, acknowledgment, the judgment Of foreign
Court II 1t amount to less than 800 ne shall be restricted
10 the county corporation court and consequently de-
barred the superior. call upon gentlemen answer
thie question.
Lave heard, Mr. Speaker, objections 70 this bin,
which conceive my duty here 10 notice. II 10, boen