Litchfield enquirer., 1879-12-25
More Judges [

past there has been scarcely any trials of ordi
 nary civil cases. Even those cases which ar'
 by law entitled to preference have not hat
 speedy disposition, but cumber our dockets
 and make the trial of cases not entitled tt
 preference a practical impossibility. Int
 chief occasion of this delay has been tht
 shortness of terms. and the interference o criminal business. How then, is the citizer
 to get that speedy justice which is his right
 Plainly not by any existing methods. Ar increase of the Superior Court bench is the remedy usually proposed. If by the addition of two or three new judges the laws inevitable delay can be shortened year, it will be well worth the State the $e0O0, or $12, 2,00O, it will I cost in additional salaries.
 Our own opinion IS that great relief can be effected without trying any new experi- ments, or incurriug any new expense, simply by return to old methods. Until-1855 all the work of the Supreme and Superior Court was done, and certainly as speedily and as well done as now, by five judges. This was made possible by the old system of County Courts which did nearly all the criminal business, and much of. the less important civil business, now crowding the dockets of our Superior Court. | There was one great evil, however. in the fact that an appeal lay in most civil cases from County to Superior Court, upon which there was not only rehearing of the law, but an entire new trial, usually by jury, of the facts. It was this burden of double trials of fact which broke down the old county courts.
 After the county courts were abolished there were at first but two courts of general jurisdics tion known to our law; Superior and Supreme. The rehearing of fact involved under the old system was avoided, but the dockets of the Superior Court became over-crowded and Common Pleas Courts were established in four of the eight counties in the State; then the District Court, Tn this county. In the consti- tuition of these courts the old difficulty of re- hearings of fact in the Superior court was avoided by allowing revision of errors on points of law Tn the Supreme court only, but no rehearing of fact.
 Unfortunately, as it seems to us, these aux Hilary courts were given no criminal jurisdic- ton. AS lawyers we'll know, the trial of criminals seldom requires the high judicial at- tainments frequently called for in the dispo- stion of civil cases. To set judges of inferior courts trying civil business, and judges of su- perior courts trying ordinary criminals is little less than absurd. As a necessary sequence from this fundamental error the Superior court has had neither the amount nor the kind of relief it needed Common Pleas judges have been trying civil causes involving property to the amount of 5000, while Superior court judges have been at the far simpler work of trying common assaults, and mere jail offences. Appeal from any justice decision lay to the Common Pleas court in civil case, but to the Superior court in the simpler criminal case.
 Will it not be wiser. then, to give the Supe- rior Court precisely the relief it most needs, by establishing a system of inferior courts of criminal jurisdiction Eight, and perhaps less, competent judges, at salaries averaging $2ooo each, would easily accomplish this. In all the counties but Hartford and New Haven, these judges could be given jurisdiction of justice appeals, and civil causes under perhaps $500, and thus dispense with the need of Common Pleas courts in Fairfield and New London counties, and of the District Court in Litch- field county. The Superior court would then have no criminal business, except that Su. perior Court judge should sit with the county court judge in capital cases, and there would seem little doubt but that the business of that, and of the Supreme Court, could be accom- plished by eight judges. All of this work business to be done in our courts can hardly have doubled since then. Moreover, at that time, Superior Court judges had much criml. nal business on their hands, of which they would be relieved under the plan we now pro- pose Another feature of modern practice which greatly increases the responsibility of the judge trying civil cases is the prevailing custom of submitting both the facts and the trials, the jury, under instruction indeed from the court, are judges both of law and fact.
 Although we do not believe in too close considerations of economy in providing an adequate judiciary, it will be observed that this plan would involve positive saving in salaries. It would dispense with the services of six judges now drawing salaries amounting to $19,000; and, allowing the eight proposed county judges salaries averaging $2, 900 year, each, saving of 5000 a year would be ef- fected by the arrangement. Upto 1854, the average salary of the county judge was $500 At that time the salary of the Superior court judge, now $4,0O0, was $1,25O The same rate of increase would raise the average salary of county judge to but $96O, less than half we propose giving him. We cannot imagine that there would be any difficulty in securing the services of competent county judges at salaries ranging from 5000 to $3O00, in proportion to the business to bo done In the smaller coun | ties the judges of this court could afrv.a .a accept moderate salaries, since they would lose but little practice except that which pays least-the trial of criminal causes | Under this arrangement there could not but be an ample judicial force. Eight Supreme and 1 Superior Court judges could certainly accom- plish the business arising from narrower field of jurisdiction. They would be assisted by Common Pleas courts in Hartford and New Haven counties, with jurisdiction in civil cases up to $1 1000, while the county judges in the other counties would relieve them of the justice appeals, and of other petty civil cases.
 Above all, this plan would provide that the higher judicial ability should do the higher judicial work, and would remedy that funda-
 mental error of our present system which 1 throws all the criminal business into the high CT courts rather than into those inferior tribunals
 which could do it just as satisfactorily.
 1 F. L. Allen, the hardware man of Phoenix Avenue, Waterbury, has no interest in the business at his old location, but is located now on his own premises, where with his facilities for purchasing, he cam and soiW sell anything Tn the line of Hardware At lower prices than