JUSTICES' JURISDICTION.
Mr. Montgomery's [H. R. 97] to regulate and increase the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, being reported back with a Committee recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. JEWETT said: This report of the Committee was made because the Committee was unanimously of the opinion that any increase of the jurisdiction of Justifies would be unwise. My own opinion i that the jurisdiction should be curtailed rather than extended. In the first place those who are elected to the office of Justice of the Peace, while very excellent citizens, are as a rule without any considerable legal knowledge, and for that reason liable to err in judgment. These errors are harmful in proportion to the amount for which the wrong judgment Is rendered. But the strongest reason why the jurisdiction should not be increased arises from the fact that the records are so imperfectly made up and so exposed to loss or destruction.
Mr. SHOCKNEY: The people of my County are anxious to extend the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, under proper restrictions. They feel that if there is any claps in the State that needs relief, is the debtor class, and that this bill will lessen the costs of proceedings in civil cases can not be doubted. If It will, it is certainly in the interest of the common people of the State, and ought to be adopted.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, said, the report of the Committee should be sustained; the jurisdiction of Justices should not be increased from $200 to $500. There are strong reasons against enlarging the present jurisdiction.
Mr. DEEM said: I am decidedly in favor of increasing the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, in civil cases. Such a measure would tend to give the people cheaper litigation, and at the same time expedite the collection of just claims.
Mr. MOCK thought the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace is already too great.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, said: Being in favor of the stability of the laws and opposed to the obliteration of the established landmarks, and not knowing the full sweep of this amendment, I feel that I ought not to support the bill.
Mr HEFFREN: I am opposed to the recommitment of this bill for several reasons, and am in favor of its indefinite postponement. I believe that Justices of the Peace have now a sufficient jurisdiction in civil cases. But one of my principal objections is that it is a bill to prevent appeals by poor men. A rich man can select his @wn Justice of the Peace, obtain a judgment against a poorman and however unjust, unless the poor man can give a bond of appeal, he is at the mercy of his creditor.
Mr. MONTGOMERY said: I do hope the members will not concur in the report of the Committee. This bill, as you are aware, proposes to give Justices of the Peace jurisdiction in civil cases to the amount of $300 in litigation, and may confess judgment o the amount of $500. In my judgment this would greatly reduce the costs of litigation, and would greatly reduce the inconveniences of attending Court, where the same might be settled in our own Townships.
Mr. WRIGHT said: There is no crying need er demand for enlarging the jurisdiction of Justices. The people of the State are not in favor of building a Court House in every Township in a County.
The report was concurred in-yeas, 58; nays, 60.
