Litchfield enquirer., 1871-08-03

THE DISTRICT CoURT.-It will be seen from our legislative report that the bill es- tablishing District court in this county passed the House and came within one vote of passing the Senate, last week. The pro- posed court was in effect county court for sixteen towns north and west of Litchfeld (Goshen and Torrington not included); to hold three terms in New Milford, four in Falls Village and three in Winsted in each year with jurisdiction in civil cases in law and equity (except for divorce) up to $500. No appeal was to lie to the Superior court, but cases carried up on Jaw points were to go direct to the Supreme Court of Errors. In cases where all the parties were living within the district, and claiming under $500 damages, suit could only be brought in this court. Where one of the parties re- sided out of the district the plaintiff had his option to sue either in the District court, or in the courts of the defendants residence. The Judge of the court was to have control of the place of trial, the expectation being to try cases at the points most convenient for parties and witnesses.
 Of course any plan for cheap and speedy justice is popular in it's nature. and this one seems to have taken greatly with the representatives of the towns principally in- terested. It strikes us, however, that all that is really desirable in the project could be obtained at much less cost. We will re- fer briefly to a few obvious objections
 1. Us Expense. Involving, as this scheme does. ten additional terms of court, with their attendant cost of judge. jurors, off cers, &c.,, it could not but add many thou sand dollars to the judicial expenses of the State. The necessity of providing and maintaining suitable buildings at three separate places would necessarily add large ly, also, to the expenses of the county.
 2. Want ef Necessity. In the counties where similar courts have been established, within few years past, the Superior court dockets have been greatly crowded. and the assistance of lower courts was really need ed to prevent serious delays of justice. In this county no such necessity exists. If trials are delayed it is the fault of parties
 or of counsel, and not, we feel justified in
 saying, of counsel residing at the county
 seat. A few such terms as used to be held here before the war would soon clear our dockets. The establishment of the propos- ed court would in effect fritter the business which could be easily accomplished in four terms of one courts through Josaseen terms
 of two courts . 2. i'
 3. Infvior Gsarncter of the Court An in.
 ferior court, held by local judge who is also practicing attorney, can never be of equal weight with higher court held by first.class circuit judges. Yet the proposed
 plan takes four-6fths of the civil cases from
 the latter, with no appeal such as was al
 ways allowed from the old county courts,
 but with the power of skipping the inter. mediate court with motions in error. and
 for new trial direct to the Supreme Court
 of Errors. The new Common Pleas courts
 established in other counties on this prin-
 ciple are already embarrassing the Supreme
 court with multitude of cases that could
 and would have been settled in the lower
 court, had they been tried before first-class
 judges. The perambnlating nature of the
 proposed court, too, which, we believe, ex- ceeds all existing precedent. tends also to