Morning journal and courier., 1883-02-12
DELAY IN THE SUPREME CoU


 DELAY IN THE SUPREME COURT.
 The laws delay is proverbial and also very vexatious. It is productive of much incon- venience and not little actual suffering. It may do some good by helping to disgust peo- pie with going to law" but the good it thus accomplishes cannot fairly be said to compensate the evils which flow from it.
 There is one branch, so to speak, of the laws delay in this State which is very prop erly receiving attention. There has been for a number of years complaint concerning the delay in dealing with cases in the Supreme court. It takes long time for cases to go through this court, and there is not only de- lay in deciding them, but also in filing opin- ions. News of a decision is often received months before the opinion is fled. The first public protest against this condition of things was made in the shape of bill in the Legislature year or two ago requiring the reporter of the court to publish the date of the argument in case and the date of the decision with the printed report. The bill was reported favorably and, we think, passed one house, but it was withdrawn at the re- quest, it is said, of one of the judges of the Supreme court. Some weeks ago at the meeting of the State Bar Association the matter came up and the delay was severely criticised, especially in speech by ex-Gov- ernor Hubbard Mir. Hubbard and MT. Hal- sey, of Norwich, were appointed to consult with the judges of the Supreme court and see if there could not be some arrangement made which would lessen the delay. The IT l.. kaI- at it's last meeting the following resolutions were passed:
 Voted, That the chairman of the bar be also requested to advocate the passage of 8 bill by which the reporter Ee required to file with the clerk of the court from which the cause came a certified copy of the opinion of the court within ten days after the same is filed with the reporter.
 Voted, That the chairman of the bar also be requested to advocate the passage of statute which shall require the reporter of the Supreme court to publish with each re- port the date of the argument, the date of the decision and the date of filing the opin- ion.
 The need of reform in this matter can be made plainer by citing some facts. The su- preme court has not on an average during the last five years had as many cases as it had during the five years preceding this period. The average for the years 1871, '72, '73, "A and '75 was about 96 cases Q year, and for the years 1876, TT, '7s, '79 and 80 it has been about S3. An examination of the dock ct for New Haven county shows that on an average in 1871, '72 and '73, with larger dockets, it took about month and half for the decision of each case, and 8 case was rare ly kept more than four months. But since 1879 the average has been about five months to case, and some cases have been kept as long as eighteen months. The case of Turner vs Davis was tried at the December term, 1880. and it took the court 8 year and five months to decide it. A case was tried at the June term, 1881, and it has not yet been decided. The cases of Healy vs New Haven and Peck vs. the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad company were tried at the December term, 1881, and have not yet been heard from. There are two cases which were tried at the June term, 1882, which have not yet been heard from. The case of Finch vs. East Haven went to the Supreme court for verdict against evidence. It was tried at the June term, 1880, and was kept until June 7th, 1881, when the court granted new trial for verdict against svidencs, but filed no opinion. The case was re-tried and went to the Supreme court again on a motion for a new trial for verdict against evidence It was tried at the June term, 1882, and nobody knows what has happened to it since. similar state of things exists concerning cases in other counties.
 These facts speak for themselves and re- veal a condition of affairs which is not praise worthy. We hope that this session of the Legislature will not pass without seeing at least the action favored by the New Haven Bar Association taken. There are two bills from independent sources before the Legis- Iature requiring the Supreme court to decide cases within thirty days after argument and third bill requiring the reporter to publish the time of the argument and the date of the decision. e---.-