Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1893-02-02
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Figures Concerning the Criminal Courts
OF the State.


Figures Concerning the Criminal Courts
of the State.
Mr. Editor:
In view of the fact that the proposed
bill intends to confer criminal jurisdic-
ton on the district court of Waterbury,
l thought that the following statistics
taken from the comptroller's and from
the states treasurer's reports might be
interesting. From these it will appear
that the criminal side of the Waterbury
superior court disposes of a larger
amount of business than any other court
in Connecticut, except the common
court in Hartford. 1t also appears from
these statistics that it costs less to the
state of Connecticut to dispose to this
business than it costs in any other crimi-
nal court in Connecticut excepting only
the superior court in Tolland and the
criminal side Of the common pleas in
New London. 1t also appears that the
amount received by the superior court
in Waterbury for the cases disposed of
in that court is only $513.01 for 646 cases
which is less than $1.00 for each case
and was less money than was received
! in any criminal court in Connecticut ex-
cept the superior court in New London.
All of which shows of course that we
| have more criminal business in Water
bury than there is IN any other court in
the state except two; and that we have
less accommodations and that more cases
are nolled without cost than in any
other court in Connecticut; that we re-
ceived less money on the disposition of
| criminal business than any other court
in Connecticut except one, and that the
total expense of running our superior
court is less than that of any other conrt
| having criminal jurisdiction except two.
The number Of cases disposed of for
| two years and three months ending Sep
TENDER 30th, 1892, as appears from the
comptroller's report, in the courts having
criminal jurisdiction is as follows:
Criminal common pleas, New Haven,
| ,240 cases; criminal cases superior
| court, Hartford, S14; criminal cases SUI
perior court, Waterbury,, GAG; criminal
cases superior court, Bridgeport, $50;
| criminal cases common pleas court,
Middlesex, 602; criminal cases common
pleas, Bridgeport, ATS; cri ninal cases
| superior court, New Haven 1896; crimi-
nal cases common pleas, New London,
300; criminal cases superior court,
Litchfield, 255; criminal cases superior
court, Windham, 800; criminal cases
superior court, New London, 143; crimi-
nal cases superior court, Tolland, 70.
The amount which was received by
L Vic ulleT6uG SIdJ6 SSIIllHS
and disposing of the above cases is given
in the report as follows:
For the cases disposed of in Hartford,
$50 rs; criminal side common pleas,
New Haven, $3,3O3,S1; criminal COM
mon pleas, Bridgeport. So, 523 SO: SUI
perior court, New Haven, $2,113 90;
superior court, Litchfield, $2,016.71;
criminal cases, New London common
pleas, $1.7S5.S5; criminal cases superior
court, Windham, $1,O1O 81; superior
court, Middlesex, $916 os; superior
court, Bridgeport. $4,000 superior
court, Tolland, $534.44; superior court
Waterbury, S513 Oh; superior court
New London. $151.1S
The foregoing figures are taken from
the comptroller's report where each
year is given separately. The act Of
1889 required that the fiscal year should
end on September 80, instead of june
80, as heretofore and it is for this reason
that the report covers two years anG
three months. We think it must bt
Iapparent from the foregoing figures
that Waterbury is about as badly off fol
court accommodations as the smalles
town in the state. ~