Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/295

 276

THE GREEN BAG

exceptional, but indicates the possibilities under our present system, of more speedy trial and decision even than shown by the case cited by Mr. Crane, illustrating condi tions in England. In the other counties of the state, with probably a sufficient number of exceptions to prove the rule, the courts are well abreast of the business, allowance being made for the length of time intervening between Trial Terms in the smaller counties, which is not infrequently a period of six months, resulting from lack of sufficient business in those counties to authorize the expense of more frequent courts. The calendars in the Eighth District are much congested, owing to the designation of a large pro portion of its judicial force to New York and Brooklyn, leaving the district with an entirely inadequate number of judges. Re lief for New York City would avoid this difficulty, which is temporary, and due to exceptional causes, to some extent polit ical in their character. The average length of time under normal conditions between the date of issue and trial, where the cause is reasonably pressed, may fairly be said not to exceed six months in any of the counties, outside of New York City, including the counties of New York and Kings. This seems also to be sub stantially true with regard to the more im portant commercial centers in other states, The report of a committee on the laws delays, authorized by legislative action and made in 1904, shows that in the cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and St. Louis, a jury cause may be reached in from two to nine months from the date of issue; the shorter time given being in St. Louis, the longer in Chicago. The time in which a new issue will be reached in Baltimore is stated at from three to four months, and in Philadelphia about six months. It would appear, therefore, that the grievance, out side of Greater New York, is not of a serious character, and that measures for relief and questions of reform, looking toward speedier

trials, are mainly applicable to that city. This is certainly true as to the state of New York, only approximately so as to the other states, since the facts at hand do not fur nish sufficient data to generalize with any degree of certainty. There are, however, very many respects in which some of the admirable suggestions made by Mr. Crane may be carried into effect with very great benefit to both lawyers and litigants. I speak as to some of those suggestions from actual knowledge gained through the kindness of Mr. Crane in pre senting me to the masters and judges hold ing Chambers and Trial Terms in London in 1902. Through their courtesy in inviting me to sit with them, and in fully explain ing the method of procedure in its details, I was enabled to see, to the very best advan tage, the practical workings and beneficial results of the English system. Before considering the useful and con venient features of the English procedure, however, it is desirable to note that in some respects the methods suggested by Mr. Crane as tending to the speedy disposition of litigated causes do not commend them selves for adoption in our home jurisdictions. First.— The refusal to postpone on account of engagements of counsel would doubtless —where the engagements of counsel on either side are so numerous as to require postponement from time to time — enable parties in many instances to bring on causes with less delay than is now usual and ne cessary. It is a patent fact, however, that no greater number of causes could be tried by the court in the time at its disposal under such a rule, although individual causes might be progressed more rapidly, while it would occasion very great incon venience to suitors. Under the English system, it is necessary to employ a solicitor and junior and senior counsel, the cause being prepared by the solicitor, after con sultation with counsel, and the junior counsel always being in a position to take