Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-08-23
A Change Proposed in the Code.


The Star has from time to time noted the
proposal by lawyers, real estate and other
business men of amendments to the code
of law for the District of Columbia which
goes into effect the first day of the new
year, but one defect seems to have escaped
their attention, and it is one which is of
the utmost Importance to litigants in the
justices courts. Section of the code pro-
vides that mo resident of the District
| shall be sued in any subdistrict other than
| the one in which he resides, and no nom
| resident of the District having a place of
business therein shall be sued in any sub
district other than the one in which such
l. place of business is situated -
With respect to corporations it further pro-
vides that sits place of business shall he
its residence for the purposes OF this sec
ton" This section is mandatory, and spe-
officially provides the forum which is to
hear and determine the matter in contro-
versy. Under the present practice suit can
be commenced before any Justice; party
living In the extreme northern or eastern
section of the city can be sued before a
justice in Georgetown, and vice versa.
However, section 1904, r. S. d. c., provides
that any party to suit. his agent or at
torney, may have the cause removed to the
next nearest justice, upon filing an affidavit
with the justice issuing the writ, on the
return day or day of the trial of the
action, that he does not believe said justice
will give him fair and impartial trial on
account of prejudice or other reasonable
cause. This gives the defendant the right
to have the cause removed to the next
Justice, and also allows the plaintiff, who
has already selected his forum, to have the
same right
The new code. in providing for the re-
moval of causes, only makes provision for
the defendant, his agent or attorney. It
would seem that, having restricted the
plaintiff to the district in which the defend
ant resides provision in the code similar
to section 1904 should exist. because the
plaintiff having been compelled to sue the
defendant In the district wherein he resides,
the plaintiff has more reason to fear preju-
dice than the defendant, but the code only
provides for the latter; while, under the
present practice, any party to the suit
(plaintiff or defendant) has that right
when there is less reason for allowing him
that right than there is under the code.
Under the present practice the plaintiff has
really more rights than he Is entitled to.
He Is allowed a change of venue when no
such privilege should be granted him. as
he has already made his selection of a
magistrate. Under the new code, however,
he is unduIy restricted, because he must
sue the defendant or defendants before a
designated justice. and there is more rea-
son for allowing him change of venue
than there Is for granting that right to the
defendant and infinitely more reason fer
allowing him that privilege than under the
the plaintiff this right should be enacted
by Congress this winter, together with the
other proposed amendments
But it may be said, such provision
would destroy the effect of the provision
which requires that the defendant be sued
in the district wherein he resides or has
his place of business, and lead to the same
condition of affairs that now exists. viz,
the suing of party before some Justice in
remote part of the city. But such will
not be the case. If a provision similar to
section 1904 were inserted in the CODE
change of venue would only bring the suit
before the next nearest justice, and mas
much as it must originally be filed In the
district of the residence or place of busi-
ness of the defendant, the case may be,
the hardship of compelling him to appear
before any magistrate before whom the
plaintiff elects to sue him will be Obviated
The plaintiff will then only have a chance
to choose between two justices. the one In
the district wherein the defendant must be
sued originally, and the next nearest JUS
tice. and such right should be given him.
If the code gives the defendant the right to
remove cause. such privilege should be
granted the plaintiff III. C. G.