Evening star., 1895-03-07
THE WORD "NoT,, OMITTED.
An Error Said to Have Been Made I'm
the New Justice of the Peace Law,

An Error Said to Have Been Made I'm
The New Justice of the Peace Law.
The attention of the officials of the State
Department has been called to a seeming
error in the engrossment of the act extend
Ing the jurisdiction of justices of the
peace in the District of Columbia and to
regulate the proceedings before them," ap-
proved February 10, 1895. The error lies
in the omission of the important word
not in a material part of the proceed
ings of constables in execution of the stat
ute.
The material provisions of the act are
contained in the first four sections, as fol-
lows:
That justices Of the peace Of the Dis
trtct of Columbia shall have Jurisdiction to
hear, try and determine all civil pleas and
actions, including attachment and replevin,
when the amount claimed to be due or the
value Of the property sought to be recover
where the title to real estate is in issue,
actions for malicious prosecution, actions
against justices Of the peace or other Off
GERS Tor misconduct In Office, and actions
for slander. verbal or written, and actions
for damages for breaches Of promise to
marry.
.'Sec. 2. That such Jurisdiction shall be-
exclusive original Jurisdiction where the
amount claimed to be due or the value Of
the property sought to be recovered shall
not exceed 500. and original and concur
rent with the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia where the amount claim
ed to be due or the value of the property
sought to be recovered is more than 500.
but does not exceed $500; and where the
sum claimed exceeds $40 either party shall
be entitled to a trial by jury.
Sec. 3. That no appeal shall be allowed
from the judgment of justice of the peace
in any common-law action unless the mat
ter in demand in such action or pleaded in
set-off thereto shall exceed the sum of S..
nor unless the appellant, with sufficient
surety. approved by the justice, enters in
to an undertaking to pay and satisfy what
ever final judgment may be recovered in
the appellate court.
Sec. 4. That writs of attachment shall
be issued by justices of the peace whenever
the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney shall
file with said justice Of the peace whether
at the commencement or during the PEN
dency of a suit, an affidavit, supported by
showing the grounds upon which he bases
his claim, and also setting forth that the
plaintiff has a just right to recover against
the defendant what he claims in his said
ahdavit, and also stating, either first, that
the defendant is a nonresident of the Dis
trfct, or, second, that the defendant evades
the service of ordinary process by con-
cealing himself or by Withdrawing from
the District temporarily, or, third, that he
has removed or Is about to remove some
of his property from the District so as to
Oefeat Just demands against him, and shall
file his (plaintiff's) undertaking with suffi-
cient surety, to be approved by said justice
of the peace, to make good all costs and
damages which the defendant may sustain
by reason Of the wrongful suing out of the
attachment"
Where the Omission Occurred.
The remaining twenty-six sections pre-
scribe regulations fer proceedings in The
cases above described. The alleged error
occurs in the twenty-eighth section relat-
ing to personal property taken on execu-
tion or attachment issued by justice Of
the peace" where such property is claim
ed by q person other than the defendant"
to the cause. This section as 1t stands
reads as follows:
THAT the judgment in such cases shall
be a complete indemnity to the constable
in proceeding to sell or return any such
property; and in case Of appeal the con-
stable shall return such property unless
the party claiming. or the defendant in
into an undertaking. with sufficient Sc
curity, to be approved by the justice, for
the delivery Of such property to the officer
II the Judgment of the court shall be
against the party entering into such un-
dertaking."
1t is asserted by Justice A. S. Taylor and
others, who have studied the law and are
thoroughly familiar with the subject mat
ter, that the law clearly meant to provide
in the contingency mentioned that the
constable shall not return such property
unless" &C., instead of directing that he
should do so. The error may make trou,
BILE, but its extent can only be ascertatned
when the question actually arises under the
operation of the statute.