Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/319

 300

THE GREEN BAG

English Judicial Statistics, in reply to an inquiry addressed to him by Ambassador Choate on behalf of the Law's Delay Com mission, stated that in 1900 and 1901 the average number of cases heard and deter mined each year in the High Court was 5592. This work was performed by twentythree judges. The average number of cases tried in the New York Supreme Court, First Depart ment, including cases marked "off calen dar" is 2035: excluding cases marked "off calendar" the average number tried is 1329. Ten parts of the court are employed for ninemonths in doing the work. The average number of cases tried and otherwise dis posed of in the Second Department is 1690 per year with an average of 3i parts. The average annual work of the New York Spe cial Term of cases tried and otherwise dis posed of is 713, with an average of 5 equity parts, and of the Brooklyn Special Term 387, with one and sometimes two parts. The total of cases tried and otherwise dis posed of in the New York and Brooklyn Trial and Special Term is, therefore, 4825, of which quite a large proportion are dis posed of by merely marking "off calendar." The judicial force employed in disposing of this work in New York City in the First and Second Departments consisted in 1903, of 33 resident judges of the city of New York and an average of 10 judges drawn from other departments of the state, or 43 judges in all. That is, 23 civil judges in England dispose of 5592 cases a year, and 43 judges in New York City dispose of 4825, including cases marked "off calen dar" when reached. Considering that the English judges are obliged to spend a good deal of time in traveling upon their circuits, and holding court in all the large cities of England, the great disparity in the out put of the two courts is most significant, and the conclusion is irresistible, that the English courts of first instance are far more effective than the New York Supreme Court.

The reasons for this are not to be as cribed entirely to the superiority of the English Bench, as it is sometimes claimed, but is unquestionably due to a great ex tent to the superiority of English methods of procedure, and particularly to the prac tice which requires all suits to be brought in the first instance before an officer of the court known as a Master, who makes a pre liminary examination of the case in the presence of counsel, and makes direction for all the preliminary relief required to put the case in proper condition for trial. The case cannot be put upon the calendar until this is done, under the rules of the English High Court, and the result seems to be, that when cases are actually brought on for trial they have undergone an amount of preparation at the hands of an officer of the court which insures a clear presentation of the issue involved, so that a prompt and scientific trial is assured. This practice is known in England as the "Summons for Direction." Scarcely less efficacious in keeping down the calendars in England is the procedure under what is known as Order xiv, which is an application supported by an affidavit to a Master in Chambers for summary judg ment in liquidated claims, and in actions for recovery of land. If satisfied after hearing" the defendant that there is no defense, the master may then and there order judgment for the plaintiff, or he may give leave to the defendant to defend unconditionally, or he may give such leave subject to conditions of payment of amounts claimed to the court, or giving security. Under such a procedure the practice of putting in sham defenses and answers cannot prevail to any extent, as they do in New York, where the crowded calendars are an invitation to an -unscrupulous defendant to retard the plain tiff in the collection of his claim for three years, and thereby force him to an unjust compromise. Sham defenses cannot be stricken out on motion in New York be cause of the rule which the courts have