China His Honour Judge Lobingiex has decided an interesting point with reference to the powers of the U. S. Commissioner's Court. The case arose out of an application for mandamus made by Mr. A. Tilton Steele. The applicant appeared at the hearing in person, and Mr. F.
Schuh! was for the respondents.
His Honour has now delivered his decision as follows This is a proceeding by the de fendant in a cause now pending before the Commissioner to compel the latter "to transfer the record and file of the said cause to this Honourable Court for trial", etc, It appears that the action below was for Tls. 250, for attorney's fees, and that the present applicant as defendant. filed an answer: to the counter-claim for $2,000 U.S. enrrency. His contention is that this counter-claim, being beyond the limit of the Commissioner's power to render judgment. requires the cause to. be transferred to this Court. But the Commissioner can-rot he ousted of jurisdiction in any such manner. If he could, almost any trial before the Commissioner could be terminated by the mere filing of a counter-claim. It is the amount claimed in the complaint which determines jurisdiction and where the defendant files a counterclaim in excess of the limit the court will consider and adjudicate it up to the limit but no farther.
The applicant also complains of certain alleged procedural errors in the trial referred to. But no judgment has been rendered. When it is the applicant will have the right to appeal and where such right exists mandamus (for such appears to be the remedy here sought) will noe lie, Since the hearing of his applica tion, the applicant has filed a motion asking that the respondent "be required to answer or plead in accordance with the ordinary rules of court", etc. Mandamus, however, is not an ordinary but an extraordinary remedy and the practice in this court is that when such application is presented it is first examined to determine whether it sets forth grounds which prima facie entitle the applicant to relief. On this point the applicant is heard and also the adverse natty if he desires it. But the sufficiency of the application should be determined before requiring the latter to answer.
The procedure in this instance has been the same as in other cases. The application has been examined and found insufficient to justify the relief asked and it is accordingly denied at the applicant's costs, that he was willing to apologize and nay the costs of the court action, but plaintiff, through Mr. Schuhl, fernandod that an additional Tls. 170 be placed at the disposal of the Russian Relief Fund.
The case was then adjourned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.