Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/285

 266

THE GREEN BAG

judges, and there would be a great reduc tion of the loss of working time on the part of the individual judges. Until September, 1904, upon the filing of a common law suit both in the Circuit and Superior Courts, the case was assigned to some particular judge and remained on his calendar until its disposal. A new sys tem was instituted under which all cases were placed on one calendar in each court, and as they were reached for trial were assigned by an assignment clerk to some judge who might be ready to try it. This system did not give universal satisfaction and has been abandoned by the Superior Court, which has returned to the old system. The Circuit Court, however, retains it. In chancery matters there is no such delay as in common law suits. There are two judges in each court who devote their exclusive time to hearing chancery matters. Upon the arrival of a case at issue a hear ing may ordinarily be had, even before the chancellor himself, within three months. The number of chancellors seems adequate, and the apparent large number of undis posed chancery cases is due not so much to the inability to have them reached for trial and disposal, as to the failure of the lawyers properly to press the suits to an end. The County and Probate Courts may be said to be fairly up with their respective dockets. The work of these two courts however is largely administrative, and except in cases of special assessments, which are large in number, there are few litigated matters. In the United States Circuit Court there are pending 729 cases, both law and chan cery. The Circuit Court is held by a cir cuit and a district judge sitting in the Cir cuit Court. It disposes of about 354 law cases and 176 chancery cases annually. An additional judge has been provided for by Congress recently. This court is behind in the trial of its law calendar, but the addi tion of one judge will enable it to adequately care for litigation before it.

The legislature of the state is now con sidering a bill for the establishment of a Municipal Court. A bill has passed the state senate providing for it; the House of Representatives has passed a bill pro viding for one Municipal Court, called the Common Pleas Court, and five other courts, called city courts. While the constitution and jurisdiction of the courts as contemplated by these two bills is different, the general features are the same, and the bill that is ultimately passed will probably be a combination of the most desirable features of both bills. The bill passed by the Senate may be con sidered as fairly, typical. This bill gives to the court thereby created jurisdiction of action on contracts; also of all suits, civil or criminal, at law or in equity, transferred to it by change of venue from the Circuit, Superior, or Criminal Courts of Cook County; of all criminal cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment otherwise than the penitentiary; all classes of suits and proceedings of which a justice of the peace is now given jurisdiction; all those suits at law for the recovery of money only if the amount does not exceed $1000. The bill divides the city into five districts, and branch courts will be held in each of these districts. Twenty-five judges are pro vided for, at a salary of $7500 per annum for the chief justice, and $6000 per annum for the associate justices. The administra tion of the court is assigned to the care of the chief justice. All actions involving $1000 or less shall be prosecuted without written pleadings. Cases involving over $1000 shall be prose cuted with written pleadings. Applica tions must be made to the Supreme Court of the state by the chief justice of the Mu nicipal Court in the first instance, for the approval of rules of court adopted by the Municipal Court judges. Appeals will be prosecuted from the Municipal Court to the Appellate and Supreme Courts. There are no stated terms of court, and judgments,