The Washington times., 1922-06-25

ana tenant cases, especially those
involving the right Of possession,
in the Municipal Court.
Tenants aggrived at the local
courts method in disposing Of
these matters have taken their
troubles to Capitol Hill, it 10
reported, and the conduct Of the
Municipal Court is being COM
pared unfavorably to that Of the
District Rent Commission.
Tenants Resent Change.
The law Of May 20 last. which gave
an additional two years Of life to tie
rent board. at the Same time removed
from it's jurisdiction to that Of Mu.
nicipal Court all cases concerning
notices to vacate.
When these cases in the past we're
argued before the rent commission,
full consideration was given to both
given q full hearing. whether repre-.
sented by counsel or not. The com.
mission especially stressed the point
of good faith In the hearings. and its
decisions were largely based upon
this feature. 1t Is estimated that
two-thirds of the notices to vacate,
figuring in rent commission hearings.
were Sustained by that body.
The Municipal Court. however, Is
q formal court. whereas the com
mission is informal. The court, there
fore. requires all kinds of legal tech
nicalities to be observed, and its
hearings in the opinion OF some ten.
ants and lawyers, are not only brief
but arbitrary. This manner Of hear.
ing and judging possession cases has
given rise to the complaints Of rail-
reading" and to threats OF Congress
sional Intervention.
When the new law turning over
the commissions possession cases to
the court became effective, the lat
ter's dockets already were crowded.
and the commission was told that
trouble would be experienced in I'll.
ing the papers connected with the
cases, which totaled we'll over 200.
At present they are being fed to the
court with much the same caution
that a nurse might exercise In diet
ing a patient.
jurisdiction Changed.
It is only recently that conditions
IN the Municipal Court became no.
ticeable, although they are said to
have prevailed for almost a year.
The Municipal Court is the direct
descendant of the old Justice of the
Peace Court of Washington. The
latter was known generally as the
"poor mans court" a tribunal be.
fore which townsfolk could argue
their minor financial grievances
without the observance Of the more
complicated legal forms and the re.
tention Of attorneys.
In 1902 Congress authorized that
the Justice Of the Peace Court
should thence be known as the
Municipal Court and should have
the power to make rules and resu-
lations, changing them from time
to time: as circumstances warrant.
ed. This change came to an
Increased the Jurisdiction Of the
court in cases involving $500 or
less to those not exceeding 81 900.
This was the act Of March 8. 1921.
In June Of that year, the Munic-
ipal Court issued a new set OF
rules. These were Of a highly com.
plicated nature, and utterly pre-
cluded the possibility Of a layman
arguing his own case.
It soon became manifest that the
rules would cause busy days In the
capitals law profession, because
observance of technical forms Of
pleas and affidavits cannot success.
kully be negotiated by the average
layman.
All Need q LAWYER.
In the class of cases to which land.
lord and tenant disputes belong. the
rules provide that mo formal plead.
inss shall be required" but the
plaintiff must file a bill Of particu.
lars of his claim, facts stated in an
affidavit of merit not to serve as
such bill Of particulars"
It is obviously impossible for an
educated layman to draw up a
legally sound affidavit Of defense Of
q bill Of particulars, IL he has had
no law school training, leaving out
of consideration the hundreds OF illit
crate tenants who have been heard
before the rent commission.
For many months the rule in the
Municipal Court has been: IF you
can't hire a lawyer, you're out Of
AuChs DuCu tho CNOtutioH tnS
poor mans court"
Tenants who cannot pay for legal
representation In the Municipal Court
usually surrender their rights Of
tenancy, rather than retain an at.
torney and then throw themselves
upon the doubtful mercies OF the
court. Even tenants in moderate
circumstances cannot afford the ex.
perienced lawyers who usually repre-
eant landlords in these cases.
How deeply the Municipal Court
considers the. question of good faith
in possession cases is debatable. as
good faith borders on the abstract
and has no well-defined limitations.
but must adjust itself to the i'm.
mediate circumstances. However,
the Municipal Court has not rs vet
requested information from the rent
commission on facts conserning
possession cases which have come
FOR final disposition to the poor
mans court"