Telegram-herald., 1891-05-19
svFtsles seuH1 NesE. fAeeAs !
TIE s-rsss.. ss..s stsss s1--s a.
sssse.sss 90 -. s..s.... Asss-.~-ss

sssse.s.. "a -. s..s.... Asss-.--s
nsstss t.ssass. tsssss..
hasss lagsass. enc ~ the fathers 81
nafnssd'afi Aepesiel spast 81 peiiaE
Aet. ia Yesterdays leAptsAa II tsat q.
"a an sssissip ewes his eva Signature.
SAYS ''ths lAil doss aps ls sas assaAsf
.aesl ssfest epsuins es ssaaesn "a s.pss
nfaee~aiaes. sna sneh lse. 20 its sffessts
stisss fsesa a misapasheasian al its
provisions ssw lst ps sse 4 sissfe is
aaf nnsarpfeheasnia "a ~ lis psesls
l.ns Tee Law new sesds ss fplless,
" Aaa sad superior stsntt shal have
ssslaase jurisdiction at all s.tisins af
CIVIL nature. 81 Law -. 10 equity, shs.ls
may 10 l,4,sasht Nv ~ against the beard
81 eautaiien ef sali sitY. 90 by 90
against ,lie ssii cts ~ any nf its OH
e.fs" Now Ar Isassfts amendment
va the su.ssssss esn.t 81 sita.'s Hap
ala ehly original aud concurrent iasis.
d,o.lsn With the es,euit evuit vi Kent
eanns, III ''ali actions ~ civil nature
At law ga "a equity, which ms, ''e
hfueEht iY 80 against The ssid city. 80
any of ia oiilcets. New 10 there any
"Misapete hvusi9n' IA saying that q
street opening ease ls a case drought
~ 90 against the eiiyf' let Nh. Tag
CART answer.
Now in fegar 10 the section amended
giving the ,,ght In transfer oases from
tAe Circuit, which " section eass at
Howet's statute which gives
IN suite within the jurisdiction til. right
at the time OF entering hie appearance.
upon iiling has bond aud to have his ease
transferred 10 the Supreme Court is by
ihs proposed commandment made
absolutely uugstoly aud might just %
we'll b. repealed Tor 1t IL only when
"thc Judge OF said CO irt isan interested
party to said suit or has been heretofore
consulted at employed as council III the
subject Natter "or in which h.
would lie excluded from sitting rs u
Juror hy reason Of consapguinity oi
affinity or any party tn said suit thai
can by law and without the consent OF
the Judge of such circuit court be trans
fcrrcd To another cncuit." see Howell
| stat1tes, section 6iYo. The power
10 transfer from circuit To circuit,
| for the cause mentioned lis purely
statutory and must be strictly con
strued." so that any attorney will sec
that Mr.. Taggart's bill would To all IN
tents and purposes amount 70 repeal
/ of section 1854"
Now for the weakness of Mr.. Tag
CARTS illustration, he says: $50 Illus
trate, a resident OF the county, not city
as the law now is, has u debtor res.dins
| IN the city and sues him in the Circul
court composed of both city aud county
| Jurors, the defendant, without any
showing as a matter OF right, can have
such case transferred to the superior
| court and have jury composed of hi!
acquaintance in the city. Now let u
see how well acquainted Mr.. Taggart
| defendant is III this city. Here is II cit,
! of at least 20, 900 population, and out oil
that 900 are drawn each term thirty
men, Of whom not to exceed twenty
four sit, so that out of that large popu
lation only about ninetv-six men 81
each year. Now since Mr.. Taggart ha
| offered an illustration as to his position
let me illustrate. Take for instance tin,
case of Balsch vs., The City of Crane
Rapids, recently decided IN this cour
in favor Of the city. and which decision
was affirmed by the Supreme Court
Mr.. Taggart for the plaintiff. Now
would ike Mr.. Taggart to answe
whether in his opinion that action wa
l -
equity by or against the city?" w
pause for q reply. Mr.. Taggart argue
that IN 3 suit against the city by resi-
he selected from the county because tn
defendant would "have n jury entirel
composed of its acquaintance in tin
CITY," Would Mr.. Taggart have sui
brought by resident of Saginaw
I ,,cf al IS d. a..
by jury one-half drawn from Sagina,
and One-half from Grand Rapids s.
that there could be q divi
sion OF the friends OF eithe
thereon? If such a rule were adopte,
the residence of the litigants woui,
arbitrarily fix the jurisdiction of tn
court, so far as the selecting of jurie
IL concerned, in each case brought o.
for trial by jury. OF course he will
saw such rule would be absurd, but
is the logic of mis- arguments in favo
of county jury. He assumes that
city jury would he dishones
enough to peUure themselves 70
the few cents the average juror In
to pay in taxes each year by reason o
the clty's litigation. If city jury j
prejudiccd in favor of city litigants an.
a country jury against city lItlgants, q
Mr.. Taggart assumes them to be, wher
will we try our city cases without preju
dice one way or the other? The fact i
that most of the suits against the cits
arise out of some public work, such a
grading, putting IN sewers, etc, and II
such cases the ordinances and methods
of the various city departments ar
generally material evidence, and
think the residents of the city are bette
| qualified than residents Of the countr,
10 Judge of the necessity of such ordl
nances and methods, and are thus bette
equipped for jury work of such a ma
ture. Under the general laws of thi
state all such cases are tried either b,
the superior courts orrecorder's courts
which are purely municipal courts, il
every city in this State. and the amend
ment in the proposed bill is an exception
4 - a. A n