Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/315

 THE GREEN BAG hearings upon the merits, unless there is a complexity of accounts requiring a Rule to a Master, are had within a month of appli cation therefor. The counties other than Suffolk and Mid dlesex have from one to four terms for the trial of law cases in a year, and litigants desiring a hearing experience little difficulty except for the engagements of counsel in getting it at the term following the com pletion of the pleadings. Cases are practically never delayed by complexity of pleadings. D.emurrers, when filed, are heard and disposed of promptly, and the time for answer over, where de murrers are over-ruled, is strictly limited. In Suffolk and Middlesex cases entitled to go upon the Special Trial List, viz: cases appealed from the lower courts, cases of contracts where the amount sued for is less than two thousand dollars, cases which have been referred to an Auditor, and a report made, cases where verdicts have been set aside or where exceptions at a previous trial have been sustained, are tried promptly un less a jury has been claimed. In Suffolk where a jury has been claimed, a year will ordinarily elapse between the marking and trial of the case. Where no jury has been claimed, the case is tried and decided ordi narily without delay. The principal trouble comes from cases on the General List in Suffolk and Middle sex and results from the large number of personal injury cases brought. These cases usually consume from two days to a week in trial before a jury, and delay the entire list. In Suffolk substantially two years must elapse between the bringing of a suit and a trial, and in Middlesex one year. It would seem to be entirely reasonable that one or two of the Suffolk Jury sessions should be employed upon contract, fraud, land damage, and commercial cases. This would undoubtedly result in some addi tional delay in the trial of personal injury cases, unless additional sessions are pro vided. But the despatch of business con

cerning property rights ought not to be hampered by any single line of cases. III. No appeal lies from the verdict of a jury in this commonwealth. Motions for new trial are heard by the justice who presided at the trial and are summarily dealt with. It is rare that the determination of such a motion is delayed beyond the sitting at which the trial takes place. IV. We have a provision in this state simi lar to the English procedure for summary judgment. In an action to recover a debt or liquidated demand the plaintiff may, within twenty days after the time for filing an answer, file an affidavit verifying his cause of action and stating that in his be lief there is no defense thereto. If the de fendant does not, within seven days after notice of this affidavit, disclose, by affidavit, or as the court shall otherwise order, such facts as the court finds entitle him to defend, the case shall be advanced for speedy trial. The defendant is required to disclose spe cifically and clearly the facts on which he relies, and this provision is generally effec tive in bringing about a speedy determina tion of cases where there is no real defense. V. We have no provision similar to the summons for directions explained by Mr. Crane. Pleadings are so simple that the justice presiding at the motion session can deal with all questions arising under the pleadings and all interlocutory matters without delay. Either party, after a suit is brought, may interrogate his opponent, but the right of inquiry is strictly limited to inquiries essential to his case or defense, and he may not inquire with regard to his opponent's witnesses or matters tending to sustain his opponent's case. The result is that when cases are reached for trial each side is to a considerable extent in the dark as to what his opponent will prove and his methods of proof. Probably a great deal of time would be saved in the courts if we had a provision similar to that in New Hampshire, enabling