Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/283

 264

THE GREEN BAG

either plaintiff or the defendant should live or do business in Suffolk to give that county's courts jurisdiction. The result is that many cases are brought there which by rights do not actually belong there. For instance, a plaintiff, living in Newburyport and injured in Nantucket by the negligence of a defendant living in Springfield, may sue in Suffolk if the defendant has a place of business or merely a bank account in Bos ton, Chelsea, Revere, or Winthrop. Attor neys practising in Suffolk take advantage of this to sue where they can most easily keep an eye on their cases and where the juries are most accustomed to giving ver dicts for large sums. The practice acts permit causes originally brought in district, municipal, or police courts to be appealed to the Superior Court where they are tried de novo. In Suffolk such cases are entitled to go on a special, speedy trial list and thus reach trial much sooner than the average case brought originally in the Superior Court. Until recently the clerk's office of the Suffolk Superior Court has kept no statistics as to the number of cases brought each year or the manner of their disposition. It is, therefore, impossible to speak in other than indefinite terms. A casual inspection of the docket shows jury cases brought originally in that court during October, November, and December of 1902, and in which the docket discloses no dilatory pleas or other evidence of a desire for delay. In these cases verdicts were rendered in March, 1905, or a lapse of over two years from the join ing of issue. And this may fairly be taken as the time consumed in reaching trial. Recent additions to the numbers of "the justices of the Superior Court and to the number of sessions held in Suffolk (nine

judges sit almost continuously from early October to late in June) and the adoption of a new system of assigning cases for trial (al most identical with the Ohio system de scribed in another article in this issue by Mr. Westenhaver) have bettered the con ditions of a few years ago. On January i, 1904, there were 10,01 6 law cases pending in Suffolk. During 1904, 4878 cases were disposed of by trial, agreement, or discontinuance, and there were instituted 5036 new cases, so that 10,174 were pend ing on January i, 1905. The equity ses sions of both Superior and Supreme Courts handle their business expeditiously. The Supreme Court, while somewhat embarrassed of late by an increase in matters of original jurisdiction, is not so far behind the work as to occasion genuine complaint. Further information regarding Massachu setts is rendered unnecessary by Mr. Elder's valuable contribution. In Rhode Island the trial courts have been badly congested with consequent de lay. The Constitution has been recently amended, however, so as to permit of the adoption of an entirely new judicial system. This will probably go into effect in Julynext, and as it seems admirably adapted for the needs of that state, discussion of present conditions becomes superfluous. Detailed information regarding California has not been received, but I am informed that there is delay of from six months to a year in obtaining trial in San Francisco. The reasonably satisfactory conditions in Ohio are explained by Mr. Westenhaver, the congestion in Chicago by Mr. Gwin, and that in New York by Mr. Fiero and Mr. Hayes in other contributions to this number. BOSTON, MASS., April, 1905.