Thirteenth Annual Report Justices of the Supreme
P u b l ic D o c u m e n t No. 166
Sltr (Eumnunuuraltli of HaHoadtitartis
THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT
to the JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
By the J® EXECUTIVE SECRETARY J4OIM3 A615 \mu , 1969 t as ° f c .l June 30, 1969
P ublication of th is D ocument Approved by A lfred C. H olland, S tate P urchasing A gent 2550-5-70-046442 Estim ated Cost Pep Copy: $.99 T he H onorable T he C hief J ustice and'Associate J ustices of the Supreme Judicial C ourt for the C ommonwealth
I
Photo by Fabian Bachrach
R. J a c o b F r a n c is P a u l P a u l J o h n R a y m o n d M MI C. G. V. S. A J- J- W II.K I NS C u t t e r Sl’IKOKL Q u ir ic o R e a r d o n K ir k S p a l d in g c. j. TABLE OF CONTENTS
P a g e P a r a g r a p h Introduction...... 3 1
The Judicial Sy s t e m ...... 4 9
Po p u l a t io n ...... 6 15
Delay in Co u r t ...... 6 16
Remand and Re m o v a l ...... 11 31
Massachusetts Judicial Conference . . . 12 36 Probate Co u r t s ...... 13 39
District Co u r t s ...... 13 43
Civil Practice and P r o c e d u r e ...... 14 50
Criminal Practice and Procedure .... 17 67
The Judiciary...... 19 78
Judicial Salaries...... 21 96
Court Management...... 22 100
Physical Fa c il it ie s ...... 23 106
Comments on the Various Courts (a) Supreme Judicial C o u rt...... 31 167 (b) Superior C o u r t ...... 32 176 (c) Land Court...... 33 182 (d) Probate C o u r t s ...... 34 188 (e) District C ourts...... 35 198 (f) Municipal Court of the City of Boston . . 36 205 (g) Juvenile C o u r t s ...... 37 211
Co n c l u s io n ...... 38 218
Foreword to App e n d ic e s ...... 39 appendix
P age' I Court C o sts...... ’’ . 40 II Statistics of the Performance by the Various Courts'- \ • 62 íisAi»1 î! 'pâ9V Ht Sí* i-; i t ó J í n " 1'- *• - -isíS^inS VI
DEC 8 1970
S I h . 1t. i1Uü£>L.; Dvjo I 'JI'|1
M a ss- o f f ic ia [.s P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
INTRODUCTION 1. The year ending June 30, 1969, provided no relief to the courts of the Commonwealth from the increasing burden of civil and criminal litigation. The combined statistics of civil and criminal en tries in all courts, appearing at page 62 of this report, show that in a period of twelve years the case load has risen by 110 per cent. 2. In the corresponding period there has been no appreciable increase in the total number of judges who sit in the various courts. In 1958 the judges numbered 247; in 1969, 262, or six per cent more. 3. During the same period no major new court house has been completed. Yet in at least four large counties, Suffolk, Bristol, Essex, and Hampden, it has been known for more than twelve years that the courts have been operating in inadequate structures. In Middlesex county progress is visible but tardy in construction of the high rise building in East Cambridge. The record is better with respect to district court houses as will be noted in later paragraphs dealing with the physical facilities of the courts. 4. The decade of the seventies will witness a further widening of the gap between the case load and the resources of the judicial department unless the courts are provided with the men and the accommodations essential for their operation. 5. Only with public understanding of the critical needs of the courts and with strong support from the executive and legislative branches of the government can the judicial department accomplish the task of putting the business of the courts upon a current basis. 6. It is essential that all three branches of the government agree upon a plan to reach this goal. The basic ingredients of a plan are obvious: more judges and supporting personnel in those courts where needed and a building program now. 7. This will cost money. By comparison with the total cost of state and county government, however, the expense of operating the courts represents less than two per cent. It is time to correct the imbalance. 8. It also is imperative that those judges who are charged with administrative responsibility be given greater assistance. Among states of comparable size Massachusetts is almost alone in expecting so much from so few. 4 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 9. The following outline describes the organization of the courts of the Commonwealth.
A. T h e Su p r e m e Ju d ic ia l C o u r t The chief justice and six associate justices. Final appellate jurisdiction in all cases. Original jurisdiction — mainly petitions for extraordi nary writs and for relief under various statutes — single justice. Advisory opinions at the request of either branch of the Legislature or the Governor or the Executive Council. General superintendence of all courts of inferior juris diction.
B. T he Su p e r io r C o u r t The chief justice and forty-five associate justices. General trial jurisdiction, jury and non-jury. Circuit system.
C . T h e P r o b a t e C o u r t s The chief judge, twenty-two judges, two part-time judges, and one special judge. Jurisdiction of probate of wills, administration of es tates, appointment of guardians and conservators, divorce and annulment of marriages, separate maintenance, adop tion and change of name. Equity jurisdiction except as otherwise provided by statute. County system except judges subject to assignment by chief judge.
D. T h e L a n d C o u r t The judge and two associate judges. Jurisdiction in land titles, registrations and uses.
E . T h e D is t r ic t C o u r t s The chief justice, sixty-one full-time justices, eighteen part-time justices and eighty-one special justices. Jurisdiction of lesser criminal cases and of civil actions at law and of juvenile cases. Non-jury, except sessions with jury of six in East Cambridge, Haverhill, Lowell (eff. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 5 10/5/70), and Worcester and on a temporary basis in six other courts. Five-judge appellate divisions — northern, southern and western districts.
F. T h e M u n ic ip a l C o u r t o f t h e C i t y o f B o sto n The chief justice, eight associate justices, and five spe cial justices. Three-judge appellate division.
G. T h e B o sto n Ju v e n il e C o u r t The justice and two special justices.
H. T h e S p r in g f ie l d Ju v e n il e C o u r t A justice.
I. T he W o r c e s t e r Ju v e n il e C o u r t A justice.
10. The new juvenile courts in Springfield and Worcester were created by St. 1969, c. 859. This is not a desirable development. 11. The court system has been fragmented by the creation of two administrative entities which have no operating supervision and which must be independently staffed and quartered at great expense and with no demonstrable benefit to the public. 12. The creation of these two courts is a prime example of the result of the absence of comprehensive planning for the improvement of the judicial system. It is hoped that there will be no further experi ments of this kind and that experience with the operation of the Springfield and Worcester juvenile courts will demonstrate the wisdom of continuing the jurisdiction of the district courts in juvenile cases and of supplying its judges with the necessary staff and facilities. 13. Massachusetts is the only state of comparable or larger size which does not have an intermediate appellate court for the review of the decisions of its court of general trial jurisdiction. The problem of relieving the Supreme Judicial Court from some of its burden of appellate work is serious. It can be solved by the creation within the Superior Court of an appeals division. This would avoid the creation of a new administrative entity although it would necessitate the ap- 6 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 pointment of more judges and staff and the provision of suitable facilities not only in Boston but probably elsewhere in the Common wealth. 14. The subject has been considered by the Judicial Conference and by bar association committees. It is an important ingredient of any plan for the courts.
15. POPULATION (by Counties )
( T h o u s a n d s )
F e d e r a l S t a t e F e d e r a l S ta te 1 9 5 0 1 9 5 5 1 9 6 0 1 9 6 5 1. Middlesex 1,065 1,115 1,239+ 1,280 2. Suffolk 897 820 791— 706 ( —) 3. Worcester 546 574 583 610 4. Essex 522 544 569 609 5. Norfolk 392 448 510+ 560( + ) 6. Hampden 368 389 429+ 435 7. Bristol 382 390 398 415 8. Plymouth 189 214 248+ 293( + ) 9. Berkshire 133 138 142 146 10. Hampshire 88 87 103 100 11. Barnstable A l 53 70+ 74 ( + ) 12. Franklin 53 56 55 58 13. Dukes 6 6 6 6 14. Nantucket 3 4 4 4 4,691 4,838 5,149 5,295 + over 20% increase, 1950 - 1960 — over 20% decrease, 1950- 1960 ( + ) over 20% increase, 1955 - 1965 (—) over 20% decrease, 1955 - 1965
DELAY IN COURT 16. The 1969 Calendar Status Study of the Institute of Judicial Administration lists four Massachusetts courts of general trial juris diction among the nineteen courts which show the longest delay in reaching personal injury, jury cases for trial. The Institute figures give P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 7 the average time in months elapsed from service of answer, or an equivalent date, to trial. 17. The Massachusetts courts appear in the schedule: Court and County 1969 1 9 6 8 (11th) Superior Court, Suffolk (Boston) 44.0 46.0 (12th) Superior Court, Middlesex (Cambridge) 38.0 35.0 (15th) Superior Court, Essex, (Lawrence) 32.0 29.0 (16th) Superior Court, Norfolk (Dedham) 32.0 31.0 18. The Superior Court has changed the time period used in time-lag reporting of civil jury cases from three months to six months. The clerks of the courts were instructed to give a mathematical aver age of all cases from the jury trial lists which were reached and held for trial and disposed of (by trial or settlement) in a six-month period ending June 30, 1969. The figures, appearing at page 10, are in months from the date of entry to trial. 19. By adding to the cases reported those disposed of between January 1 and March 31, it may seem that there would be a reduc tion in time-lag by one to three months. However, this would not be the case if the rate of dispositions were unaffected by other factors, such as, more or less civil jury sessions in operation. 20. The figures as reported by the clerks of the courts are published in this report with one exception, Suffolk county. In that county the reported figure of 33 months reflected temporary factors involved in the management of the civil jury list, such as the trial of a large number of retransferred cases ahead of older pending cases. The table contains an estimated figure of 39 months which is more consistent with reported figures six months before and after June 30, 1969. 21. There has been a steady improvement in Suffolk county in the reduction in the average age of civil jury cases. Further improve ment may be expected if a sufficient number of sessions can be main tained. 22. The factors which appear to account for the improved showing in Suffolk county are: no marked increase in civil jury case entries, effective management by the assignment session judges, good work in the clerk’s office in the processing of cases for remand, settle ments achieved with the help of two conciliators, and with some excep tions eight or more civil jury sessions in operation. 8 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 23. In the other larger counties Worcester has reduced its time- lag from 22 months to 18 months. In Bristol county, however, the period has increased from 32 months to 39.6 months; in Middlesex county at Cambridge, from 35.1 to 42 months. 24. It is unlikely that conditions will improve in the latter two counties until more judges and expanded facilities are made available. 25. The table of jury cases triable at issue and awaiting trial records a slight decrease from 40,104 in 1968 to 39,887 in 1969. The larger counties showing a decrease were Essex, Hampden, Nor folk, Suffolk, and Worcester. 26. The state percentage for cases over 12 months is 50.2%; over 18 months, 36.6%. The larger counties which exceed the state average in the latter category are: Bristol 60%, Franklin 40%, Hamp shire ^42%, Middlesex 40.1%, Norfolk 43%, and Plymouth 39%. Worcester is the only county which has reduced the number of its older cases to a relatively small figure. 27. Of greater concern than the civil jury trial delay is the increase in the number of criminal cases which remain undisposed of at the end of each court year. 28. The district attorneys, defense lawyers, and the courts are finding themselves unable to keep the Superior Court criminal lists in current condition. The risk of the dismissal of serious criminal charges for failure to provide a speedy trial will rise until the courts are able to reverse the trend of greater delay in reaching cases for trial. 29. The strain of the work in criminal law affects the Supreme Judicial Court with an increase from six criminal cases decided in 1958 to sixty-two in the current year. The Superior Court has re ceived 28,342 new indictments and complaints in 1969 as against 19,650 in 1964. The Boston Municipal Court and the District Courts show a combined figure of 286,338 in 1958 increasing to 773,131 in 1969. 30. Moreover many criminal cases consume twice as much time as formerly. Full scale hearings are required on preliminary motions and the grounds for new trial or appeal multiply. Capital cases, par ticularly in the metropolitan courts, are commonplace and consume much of the time and energy of the criminal justice system. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. .. 7. 8. 9. 10. P.D. Ot- s *5 O o o o S S 1 S > «5 1*. . S 5 COURT JUDICIAL SUPREME TO REPORT 166 OJ. Jury Cases
T im e -Lag in M onths from D ate of E ntry to T rial
Counties in W hich Sittings Are C ontinuous or
Practically so D uring the C ourt Season
1968 1969 H- o r — Bristol ...... 32 39.6 + 7.6
Essex ...... 34 31 - 3
Hampden ...... 27 25 -2
M iddlesex Cambridge ...... 35.1 42 + 6.9 Lowell ...... 21.3 23 + 1.7
N orfolk Dedham ...... 28.7 30 + 1.3
Suffolk Boston ...... 44 39* -5
W ORCESTER Worcester ...... 22 18 - 4 Fitchburg...... 20 21 + 1
* Estimated figure. See paragraph 20.
County in W hich Sittings A re Nearly Continuous 1968 1969 + or — P lymouth ...... 38 42 + 4
Counties in W hich Sittings Are N ot Continuous
(Age of M ost R ecent Cases Reached
in N orm al Course W hen Sittings H eld.)
1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 + o r - Barnstable ...... 27 27 0
Berkshire ...... 24 27 +3
Franklin ...... 30 32 +2
H ampshire ...... 19.5 33 +13.5
1. Counties of Dukes County and Nantucket are not listed because their cases are marked for trial by attorneys and the case load is not large enough to be significant. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 11
REMAND AND REMOVAL 31. The transfer of civil cases by the Superior Court to the Dis trict courts decreased again this year. The numbers transferred to the Boston Municipal Court showed a sharp increase, bringing the total of transfers to 14,809, less by 88 than last year. The remand limit under the provisions of G. L. c. 231, § 102C, remained at $2,000. I. Civil Cases Remanded T o B o s t o n To District M u n i c i p a l C o u r t s C o u r t T o t a l 1963 ...... 10,679 1,818 12,497 1964 ...... 11,367 1,575 12,942 1965 ... 11,326 1,730 13,056 1966 ...... 10,502 1,461 11,963 1967 ...... 12,585 1,733 14,318 1968 ...... 12,234 2,663 14,897 1969 ...... 10,986 3,823 14,809 79,679 14,803 94,482 II. Superior Court Trials to Verdicts or Findings After Findings Below W i t h o u t J u r y J u r y T o t a l 1963 ...... 167 26 193 1964 ...... 230 32 262 1965 ...... 215 31 246 1966 ...... 209 11 220 1967 ...... 259 37 296 1968 ...... 262 10 272 1969 ...... 248 21 269 1,590 168 1,758 m. Law Actions* Entered Superior Court 1963 ... 34,304 1964 37,140 1965 39,523 1966 ... 35,548 1967 34,730 1968 ... 33,558 1969 34,381
Total ... 249,184 (Includes removals) 12 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
32. In seven years 249,184 law actions were entered in the superior court. During the same period 94,482, or 38%, were trans ferred. The number of retrials to verdicts or findings was 1,758, or .7% of total entries. 33. In the same period 1,590 cases were retried to verdicts; 94,482 cases were remanded. Thus, 1.7% of all cases remanded were retried to verdicts. The total of cases retried to verdicts or findings was 1,758, or 1.9% of all cases remanded. 34. Since well over a third of law actions entered in the superior court are transferred and less than one per cent are retransferred and require retrial to verdicts or findings, it is clear that the remand pro cedure is essential to the survival of the superior court. 35. As the following table shows, the removal of cases from the district and Boston municipal courts has continued to rise since 1965. Such removals account for more than a third of the total entries in the superior court. G. L. c. 231, § 104, as amended by St. 1965, c. 377, provides in part that, if the ad damnum of the writ does not exceed $2,000, the case must be tried in the district court, subject thereafter to the defendant’s right to remove the case to the superior court. This statute has been ineffective in reducing the number of cases removed, as the following table shows: 1963 ...... 7.184 1964 ...... 9,197 1965 ...... 10,929 1966 ...... 8.604 1967 ...... 9,016 1968 ...... 9,419 1969 ...... 10,438
MASSACHUSETTS JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 36. The principal activity of the Judicial Conference has been the work of its Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure. The status of this project is described in paragraphs 50-55 of this report. 37. With the addition to the staff of the Executive Secretary of a second professional employee through the proposed amendment of G. L. c. 211, § 3B, it is anticipated that the Conference will be able to undertake more active programs in such fields as court administra tion, court house facilities, and judicial education. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 13 38. The Conference is an effective body representative of the various major courts of the Commonwealth but it lacks adequate staff and planning services in order to initiate and carry on impoitant projects for improving the administration of justice.
PROBATE COURTS 39. The probate courts are now authorized to appoint proba tion officers. St. 1969, c. 771, amending G. L. c. 276, §§ 83, 89, 94, and 98 and adding new §§ 85A and 85B. This legislation should strengthen the probate courts in their domestic relations cases which occupy a major portion of their work. 40. Unfortunately no appropriation was passed in the 1969 legislative session to cover salaries of probation officers and of their clerical personnel. In most probate courts space and facilities are lack ing for the accommodation of probation departments. These deficien cies must be corrected promptly. 41. The duties of the new officials resemble but are not the same as those of probation officers in criminal courts. They will be family service officers and should perhaps be designated as such in order to avoid public confusion. 42. As soon as the new departments commence to operate there will be no further need for the appointment of investigators in domestic relations cases. There has been occasional criticism of the practice although it has been obvious for a long time that the admin istration of a domestic relations court requires investigative personnel.
DISTRICT COURTS 43. The administration of the district courts has been particu larly difficult in a period of heavy losses through death or resignation of judges. The chief justice through his assignment authority has suc ceeded in keeping the courts manned but it has required great effort and the ability and the willingness of the judges to accept assign ments, frequently on very short notice. 44. The Governor has proposed a plan for the gradual replace ment of the special justices of the municipal court of the city of Boston, of the Boston juvenile court, and of the district courts. There are now in these courts: 14 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
BOSTON MUNICIPAL COURT The chief justice and eight associate justices Five special justices,
DISTRICT COURTS The chief justice and sixty-one full-time justices, eighteen part-time justices, and eighty- one special justices,
BOSTON JUVENILE COURT A justice and two special justices. 45. The plan would authorize the appointment of one full-time justice for each two vacancies in special judgeships. As is now the case with special judgeships in the municipal court of the city of Boston, the office of special justice would terminate upon the existence of a vacancy. 46. The new full-time justices would be assigned to regional areas as determined by the Chief Justice of the district courts. 47. Since the details of the plan are not available at this writ ing, it is impossible to appraise its effects upon the administration of the three courts. However, every study of the district court system has recommended the change to full-time justice. 48. The plan would be a gradual step in that direction and should be given prompt legislative consideration and should be adopted if in detail it provides in a transition period the manpower necessary for conducting the business of the courts. 49. The cost of the present special justice sittings varies widely in the courts so that it is impossible to predict accurately the year by year effect of the plan in net cost. However, the salary for full-time judicial service provides a better return than a per diem for service for much shorter periods. Furthermore, a full-time justice without limitation as to the cases he may hear is more useful in a court system than a special justice with limited authority.
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 50. The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure held sixteen three-hour meetings in the calendar year 1969. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 15
51. Professors James W. Smith and Hiller B. Zobel, reporters for the project, have submitted draft rules modelled on the federal rules with explanatory notes to the committee. Each rule has been discussed and considered in the light of existing Massachusetts pro cedure. In the interest of uniformity the committee has approved modification of the federal rules only when necessary to adapt them to local procedural requirements. 52. Upon completion of the Advisory Committee’s action upon the draft rules, they will be printed and widely distributed among judges, lawyers, and law professors for study and comment. Amenda tory legislation will be required in order to produce a simplified and consistent body of procedural rules. 53. Upon approval by the Judicial Conference the proposed rules will be submitted to the Supreme Judicial Court on the question of adoption. 54. The contribution of the members of the Advisory Commit tee to the project for revision of the system of civil procedure has been outstanding. Their names follow: Hon. Cornelius J. Moynihan Chairman Newton John Z. Doherty, Esq. Vice Chairman Lynn Paul A. Tamburello, Esq. Vice Chairman Pittsfield Professor Dennis S. Aronowitz Boston Thomas E. Cargill, Jr., Esq. Topsfield Hon. Paul K. Connolly Waltham Hon. Gilbert W. Cox Dedham James C. Donnelly, Jr., Esq. Worcester Joseph T. Fahy, Esq. Belmont Professor Richard H. Field Weston George J. Hayer, Esq. Greenfield Hon. William E. Hays Waltham Hon. Edward F. Hennessey Needham Joseph J. Hurley, Esq. Framingham Professor Robert B. Kent Boston Rep. Cornelius F. Kiernan Lowell James P. Lynch, Jr., Esq. Wellesley James P. McGuire, Esq. Fall River Nathan Moger, Esq. Newton Rep. John J. Mooney Canton John M. Mullen, Esq. Secretary Newton Francis P. O’Connor, Esq. Worcester J. Norman O’Connor, Esq. Adams 16 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Dean Thomas J. O’Toole Boston Hon. Frederick S. Pillsbury Springfield Hon. Robert H. Quinn Boston Hon. Francis J. Quirico Pittsfield Sen. William I. Randall Framingham Alphonse P. San Clemente, Esq. Worcester Rep. Andre R. Sigourney Nahant Dean Donald R. Simpson Boston Abner R. Sisson, Esq. Boston Rep. John F. St. Cyr Millis Edward H. Stevens, Esq. Brockton Bertram A. Sugarman, Esq. Brookfine Sen. Joseph D. Ward Fitchburg 55. The Permanent Charity Fund and the Hyams Fund have each added an additional $11,000 to their previous grant of $10,000 to the Boston Bar Foundation. These generous contributions, total ling $42,000, should assure the completion of the project. 56. Effective January 1, 1971, the defence of contributory negligence is abolished and comparative negligence is substituted in actions for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property. St. 1969, c. 761.
57. The severity of the contributory negligence doctrine has been more theoretical than real in the jury trial of negligence cases. Juries have been accustomed to apply a common sense approach on the issues of liability and damages.
58. Nevertheless the forthright recognition of comparative neg ligence should improve the machinery of tort practice in the disposi tion of claims both before trial and by trial.
59. How the percentage method of assessing blame will work remains to be seen. It should not present a more difficult problem than those already encountered by fact finders in negligence cases. 60. Provision has been made for review by a district court of a decision by a board of appeals in a zoning case. St. 1969, c. 706. This is an alternative to the existing equity appeal to the superior court.
61. Since an appeal to the superior court lies from the district court finding, and since zoning cases are time consuming, it is un likely that the choice of a district court forum will be made. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 17
62. A more effective method of relieving the overburdened courts would be to provide for appellate review of a district court finding by its appellate division, and to eliminate the equity appeal to the superior court from such a finding. Under these conditions the choice of a district court forum would be far more attractive. 63. Progress seems to be at a standstill in attempts by the legal and medical professions in Massachusetts to adopt a plan for volun tary submission to a legal-medical panel of medical malpractice claims. Meanwhile the professional journals and the Ribicoff con gressional committee note an increase in many states of claims and in the size of settlements and verdicts. 64. Many insurers have withdrawn from writing malpractice policies and premium costs have skyrocketed. This raises the costs of medical care and is of concern to the patient, the public, and the federal and state governments which pay a heavy share for medical services. 65. Massachusetts hospitals must also face the prospect of insurance coverage when the doctrine of charitable immunity is laid to rest. Colby v. Carney Hospital, Mass. Advance Sheets (1969) 1437.
66. No court statistics are available in Massachusetts on medi cal malpractice litigation. Litigants here are known to be claim conscious in motor vehicle personal injury cases, so that it is fair to assume that the upward trend in malpractice claims and cases will be present in this state.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 67. The Supreme Judicial Court added a provision to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:10 Assignment of Counsel in Noncapital Cases which requires the appointment under the rule of an attorney supplied by the Massachusetts Defenders Committee, or by a voluntary chari table group, corporation, or association, or one serving without charge unless exceptional circumstances justify another appointment.
68. If a judge finds the appointment of a fee attorney is justi fied, he must record in writing a statement of his reasons, to be filed with the clerk and placed with the papers in the case. The amendment also requires the maintenance of a docket of appointments of fee attorneys. 18 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
69. The following table illustrates the vast increases in the volume of legal assistance provided by the Massachusetts Defenders Committee. In the fiscal years, 1963 and 1969, the Committee was supported entirely by the Commonwealth. In fiscal 1968 National Legal Aid and federal funds accounted for $184,044 of the total. The 1969 figure includes the appropriation under the Bridgewater statute. In 1963 there were six attorneys on part-time service outside of Boston; in 1968 and 1969 there were two part-time attorneys. The latter spent about half their time in Defenders work, whereas the former spent considerably less time, making comparison difficult.
N u m b e r o f Number of full-time new cases Received attorneys 1963 ...... 1,708 $ 88,570 7 1968 ...... 18,128 789,488 58 1969 ...... 22,183 837,888 58 70. The case load of the Committee continues to expand rapidly. In order to meet its needs, the staff, including administrative, clerical, and investigative personnel, must be augmented. A social service department should be provided in order to provide assistance to the lawyers and to the courts in the disposition of cases and in the guidance of defendants, particularly juveniles. The law schools will continue to provide law student assistance. 71. The district courts and the office of the Attorney General are receiving and processing claims for compensation from victims of violent crimes in growing numbers. G. L. c. 258A, added by St. 1967, c. 852. 72. It is not possible to predict at this time how heavy a burden of expense, and of judicial, legal, and administrative work will be placed upon the agencies involved. 73. The law, effective July 1, 1968, provides for the filing and judicial determination in the district courts of claims for compensa tion with the office of the Attorney General charged with investiga tion. 74. At the end of calendar year 1969, 125 claims had been presented, of which 89 arose from assault and battery, 20 from deaths, and 16 from miscellaneous crimes of violence. 75. By March. 1970, 156 claims were received. The sum of $5,200 had been paid to 11 claimants, an average of about $472. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 19
Processed and awaiting payment were claims totalling $25,000. At December 31, 1969, there were claims pending of $136,000. No awards have been made yet where the crime alleged involved the death of a victim but in one in process the award would approach in amount the statutory limit of $10,000. 76. The use of juries of six in misdemeanor cases in the dis trict courts at Brockton, Dedham, New Bedford, Pittsfield, Salem, and Springfield has been extended until July 1, 1972. St. 1970, c. 88. 77. The bail reform statute, St. 1968, c. 127, establishing the procedure for release on personal recognizance, will also doubtless be extended or made permanent.
THE JUDICIARY 78. June 18, 1969, the Legislature in joint convention agreed to a bill that would amend Part 2, Chapter 3, Article 1, of the Constitution by providing that all judges retire upon attaining the age of seventy. The convention had previously stricken from the bill a provision for recall of retired judges for temporary active service. 79. The measure must be considered again by the next general court which will convene in 1971. If again agreed to, the legislative amendment would be submitted to the people at the state election to be held in November, 1972. 80. Under present law a judge initially appointed to the bench after July 31, 1956, upon the completion of ten years of service and upon attaining the age of seventy, whichever is later, must elect to resign in order to retain his pension benefits. G. L. c. 32, § 65A. 81. The practical effect of the statute is to force the retirement of all such judges under the provisions of § 65A. 82. The proposed legislative amendment to the Constitution would, therefore, affect only those judges first appointed on or before July 31, 1956, and those judges first appointed thereafter, whose ten years of service would be completed after age seventy. 83. There are many examples of the value of the service of judges who have reached and passed the age of seventy years. Man datory retirement at that age would deprive the Commonwealth of the work of these judges at the peak of their powers. Furthermore, it would discourage the ablest members of the bar with long experience in private practice from accepting judicial appointments. 20 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
84. The judiciary is not recruited from the junior bar. The theory of mandatory retirement as evolved in business and in the executive departments of government contemplates employment at an early age with the opportunity aSorded for many years of service. This theory is inapplicable to the facts of judicial appointment and tenure. 85. If correction is needed in the present system of judicial tenure, it should come in selective form. The present constitutional procedure for the retirement of judges because of advanced age or mental or physical disability might be supplemented by more effective administrative procedures within the judicial department for the de termination of incapacity. 86. The same objections apply to the recurring attempts to compel judges appointed in the future to become members of the contributory retirement system. This measure would reduce the salary by five per cent and would provide comparatively meager retirement benefits to a judge appointed in his mature years. There would be no surer way of discouraging able and successful lawyers from accepting judicial appointments. Far greater inducements are offered in the courts of the United States, where the judges’ salaries are considerably higher and the retirement rate is one hundred per cent. 87. Judges are no longer exempt from the provisions of the con flict of interest laws. St. 1969, c. 350. Clearly the standards of judicial ethics should be as high, if not higher, than those of other public officers. 88. By its adoption of Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:17 Com mittee on Complaints the Supreme Judicial Court has established a procedure for the investigation of complaints concerning the admin istration of justice, including those concerning the conduct of any judge. 89. The members of the committee are: Hon. Charles S. Bolster, Chairman, of Cambridge, James C. Donnelly, Jr., of Worcester, Hon. Edmund Y. Keville, of Belmont, Hon. Frederick S. Pillsbury, of Springfield, Oliver Prescott, Jr., of New Bedford, Bertram A. Sugarman, of Brookline. 90. Committees of the bar associations have been named, as contemplated by the rule. Complaints may be referred to the Execu tive Secretary of the court for preliminary examination. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 21
91. The complaint procedure is not a substitute for existing ap pellate procedures, although litigants disappointed in the result of trials are inclined to overlook this. 92. The availability of a committee to consider serious com plaints concerning the misconduct or the incompetence of a judge has many advantages. It is an aid to the administrative head of a court by providing him with an impartial authority to which may be referred disciplinary problems. 93. The existence of the committee serves as a warning to the judiciary that the highest standards of judicial conduct must be main tained and as an assurance to the public that good behavior and com petence as appearing in the Constitution are true conditions of judicial employment. 94. Perhaps of equal importance the rule has provided an an swer to those irresponsible criticisms of the courts which do great harm to all judges and court officials. A responsible professional group is ready to consider and to act upon a complaint which has genuine merit and to explain the reasons, if the complaint lacks merit. 95. Finally the work of the committee will disclose areas of dissatisfaction with the performance of the courts which call for re form of the judicial process rather than the discipline of a judge. Bail procedures provide a ready illustration of a developing problem about which there is respectable disagreement and continuing debate.
JUDICIAL SALARIES 96. In 1969 there was a general revision of judicial salaries. St. 1969, c. 845, effective January 1, 1969. The salary schedule is now: Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice $35,000 Associate Justice 33,800 Superior Court Chief Justice 31,300 Associate Justice 30,000 Land Court Judge and Associate Judges 30,000 Probate Courts Chief Judge 27,300 Judge 26,300 Judge (part-time) 9,400 District Courts Chief Justice 26,300 Justice 25,000 Justice (part-time) 7,600-10,100 22 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Boston Municipal Court Chief Justice 26.300 Associate Justice 25,000 Boston Juvenile Court Justice 26.300 Springfield and Worcester Juvenile Court Justice 22,000 97. The 1968 survey, with January and July, 1969, supple ments, of judicial salaries and retirement plans published by the American Judicature Society shows that Massachusetts ranks ninth in the nation in the salary level of an associate justice of the highest state court. The higher salaries range from $34,000 in Florida to $42,000 in New York. The states of Michigan, Maryland, New Jer sey, Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois in that order also pay higher salaries. 98. Among general trial courts the salary of an associate justice of the superior court is the same as that in Illinois and less than that in Maryland, California, New Jersey, and New York. 99. Under date of January 28, 1970, an excellent report of the Legislative Research Council relative to judicial compensation and related benefits has appeared in advance draft form.
COURT MANAGEMENT 100. In previous reports this subject has been covered under the heading of Data Processing. Until greater progress has been made in the use of mechanical aids in the operation of the courts, that title is probably misleading. 101. The processing of traffic tickets and complaints in the municipal court of the city of Boston continues to be the only large scale use of a computer in the management of a court’s business. Ef fective processing of the volume of the traffic work of the court would be impossible without electronic equipment. Close to $2,000,000 was received in the parking tag office in the year ending June 30, 1969. 102. Apart from the usefulness of the equipment in the produc tion of revenue, the machines are capable of speedy handling of a vast amount of business, of identifying habitual offenders, and of aid ing the police in their constant battle against the congestion of the streets of the city. 103. The district courts in Brockton and Fall River are develop ing programs for mechanized operation of traffic business and other P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 23 collection and accounting work. These are pilot projects which will serve as models for use in other large district courts. 104. A consultant’s report is due shortly on the feasibility of data-processing applications to the business of the clerks, civil and criminal, in the superior court in Suffolk county. This would deal with all aspects of the management of the complex processes involved in the movement of cases from entry through trial and disposition. 105. The assignment function and jury management are im portant parts of the system which will benefit from mechanized in formation storage and retrieval. A reduction in the time, now largely wasted by lawyers, witnesses, jurors, litigants and others, in waiting to be reached for trial, is an achievable goal.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES 106. The special commission to investigate and study court house facilities in the Commonwealth has engaged a consulting firm to examine and report upon the present and future requirements of the courts in the Suffolk county court house. 107. Since the Supreme Judicial Court, the Superior Court, the Land Court, the Probate Court, the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, and the Boston Juvenile Court, with the offices related to their operations, are housed in the court house, the study is of major importance to the future of the whole judicial department. 108. Prior reports of the Executive Secretary have dwelt upon the hopeless inadequacies of the present structures. To judges, and court officials who live in the buildings and to lawyers and the mem bers of the public who spend many hours in court, the sad story needs no repetition. 109. The value of the forthcoming report lies chiefly in the fact that it will be the first independent, professional survey of a problem that for many years has been at the bottom of the list of public build ing projects. 110. While federal, state, and city officials have been building a Kennedy building, a state office building, a new city hall, and the rest of government center, while a private developer has been per mitted to shut off ready access to the court house, and while a sports arena commands the earnest concern of elected officers, nothing is done to provide the overburdened courts with the space and the equipment needed to improve their operations. 24 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 111. The Commonwealth, paying thirty per cent of the main tenance cost of the county court house, and the city continue to play games with each other as to apportioning the cost of court house con struction. The result is inaction. 112. More than half of the court houses in the Commonwealth were revisited this year. The visits are useful in providing firsthand information about the accommodations for the courts and in giving the Executive Secretary the opportunity of meeting with the judges and court officials for discussion of their problems. 113. It is hoped that more time will be made available for this work but there is so much day to day activity in the Boston office that it is difficult to spend enough hours on the road. 114. The comments which follow are based largely on observa tions made in the spring and summer of 1969. Thus they may not represent the current condition of court house construction.
Barnstable County 115. The old county court house and the new probate building in Barnstable continue to provide adequate space for the superior and probate courts. The clerk of the courts will be able to use the adjoin ing county office space when the new Barnstable district court build ing is completed. 116. Last summer work was progressing on the new court house at Orleans. The site is at the traffic circle on Route 6. Upon comple tion of the building the sessions at Provincetown and Harwich will be discontinued. The loan authorization for the project was increased to $1,100,000. St. 1969, c. 312. 117. The financing for the First District Court at Barnstable has been authorized in the increased amount of $3,000,000. St. 1969, c. 894. This also covers alterations to the old building and other county purposes.
B erkshire County 118. A study of the advisability and feasibility of expanding the facilities of the county court house and the registry of deeds and district court building at Pittsfield has been authorized. St. 1970, c. 26. 119. It has been found that the hearing rooms in the basement of the county court house are insufficient in number to accommodate P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 25 auditors’ hearings, public boards, six-man jury sessions, and other uses. More space is needed for the efficient conduct of the business of the courts. 120. Repeated comments in these reports as to the inadequacy of the facilities provided for the District Court in North Adams have met no response. Continuing delay in providing a new court house will increase the cost of construction.
B ristol County 121. Due in large degree to the decision of the Supreme Ju dicial Court in the case of McIntyre v. County Commissioners of the County of Bristol, Mass. Adv. Sh. (1969) 1429, some progress may be reported in planning for the location and construction of a new central court house for the superior and probate courts and for county offices. 122. By direction of the court the Executive Secretary has met with the county commissioners and with bar association representa tives to assist in the solution of the problems involved in site selection, financing, and construction. 123. While there is general agreement on the necessity of con struction of a new building in a central location accessible to highways and other facilities, differences as to a site to fit the requirements must still be resolved. Architects have been employed to assist the county commissioners in their decision and in planning for the build ing. 124. The cost of renovation and alteration of the county court houses in Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton would be prohibi tive. Meanwhile the district court houses in Fall River and New Bed ford are in such bad condition that emergency steps must be taken to accommodate the courts until the county buildings in those cities become available. 125. At the district court house in Attleboro planning for an addition to provide badly needed space is authorized. St. 1969, c. 20.
D ukes County 126. The county court house at Edgartown has become the object of considerable interest in recent times. Since it contains only one courtroom, the superior, probate and district courts must share the room. This they do with good manners and the court officials manage their business in rather limited space. 26 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
E ssex County 127. There is growing dissatisfaction among lawyers and court officials in Essex county with the ancient county court houses at Lawrence, Newburyport, and Salem. Not only are the buildings lack ing in sufficient space for court operations but those at Lawrence and Salem are in bad, if not dangerous, condition. 128. The county commissioners should be given authority to proceed at once with plans for a new central court house. Legislation is pending for this purpose. Although in population numbers the county is the fourth largest in the Commonwealth, it is relatively com pact in land area. A central location would, therefore, be readily ac cessible from any point in the county. 129. Further progress has occurred in district court house plan ning and construction. The loan authorization for the new court house in Lynn has been raised to $2,200,000. St. 1969, c. 414. 130. The city of Gloucester has been authorized to borrow up to $1,000,000 to acquire land and to construct, equip and furnish a building for use as a police station and court house. St. 1969, c. 754. The statute contemplates a lease to the county of the court house portion of the building. 131. The new court house at Haverhill, dedicated on January 14, 1969, provides ample space for the court’s business, including a jury session. The building faces Route 97 and off-street parking is provided at the site and to the rear in a municipal parking lot.
F ranklin County 132. With a stable population and a small trial bar the county court house in Greenfield affords enough space for present operations. However, no elevator is provided for the three floors used by the courts, modern equipment is largely lacking, and future increase in business will require an addition to the building.
H ampden County 133. Architectural plans for the new county court house in Springfield are in process. Although county and municipal officials agree with court officials and the lawyers as to the necessity for the new building, the county commissioners and the municipal authori ties must resolve the question of location in the immediate vicinity of the present buildings. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 27
134. The county commissioners have authority up to $2,- 000,000 for the cost of land acquisition and of plans and specifica tions for die new building. St. 1969, c. 851. That statute defines the area as bounded by Elm Street, Main Street, State Street, and East Columbus Avenue, in expectation of the acquisition of the business properties between file superior court building and Main Street. 135. The alternate site would cover the bank lot and adjacent land on East Columbus Avenue. Legislation which would authorize financing of construction costs up to $15,000,000 is pending and would require amendment if the alternate site is selected. 136. In addition to the superior, probate, and district courts, clerks’ and other offices of the courts and of county officials, the new building will evenutally house the Springfield juvenile court created by St. 1969, c. 859.
Hampshire County 137. The latest information from Northampton indicates that court construction plans are waiting for the resolution of a contro versy over a site between the county commissioners and the adminis tration of the City of Northampton. 138. Two building committees have studied carefully the needs of the various courts. It is unfortunate that the courts must continue to function in an eighty-four year old building which is little more than an historic shrine. From the crowded basement quarters of the district court to the jurors’ rooms on the third floor the visitor must climb three flights of stairs. The experience is not rewarding.
M iddlesex County 139. There appears to be more litigation than construction go ing on in East Cambridge in connection with the court house complex. The county officials who have the responsibility for completion of the project have a corresponding obligation to explain the reasons for the lack of progress.
140. In its inception the plan for the East Cambridge complex was the most ambitious and promising effort to provide adequate, modem facilities for the courts anywhere in the Commonwealth! Now, several years later, a tall, largely exposed, steel structure stands idle and holds little promise of supplying the needs of the courts in the predictable future. 28 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P D. 166
141. Elsewhere in the county the court house construction program presents a more pleasant picture. The roomy district court house in Somerville was dedicated on March 10, 1969. Nearby in Malden where that busy court has outgrown its facilities, an addition and alterations to the building with financing up to $1,700,000 was authorized. St. 1969, c. 905. Currently, however, legislation is pend ing that would repeal chapter 905. 142. The new court house in Marlborough is nearing comple tion. Accessible to major highways and with ample grounds the build ing will serve the needs of a growing community. 143. The additions to the Lowell district court house will pro vide another busy court with much needed space for the clerk and additional courtroom capacity. At Framingham the addition at the rear of the court house has provided expanded facilities for the offices of the clerk, probation departments, and court clinic. 144. At Ayer the necessary increase in loan authority, to $1,450,000, was approved. St. 1969, c. 390. This removed the ob stacle to proceeding with the contract for construction of the new district court house at the old library site. 145. Delays were encountered in selecting a site for the new district court house at Concord. Meanwhile approval has been given for financing up to $1,700,000. St. 1970, c. 47. Steps should be taken to provide the Newton court with additional space and facilities.
N antucket County 146. No complaints are heard from Nantucket county. The courts continue to enjoy suitable quarters opened in the spring of 1966.
N orfolk County 147. An architectural firm has been studying the court house facilities in Dedham and will report shortly. It is expected that they will recommend the construction of a new superior court building in Dedham. 148. Fifth in population rank, the county by 1970 will have grown in numbers since 1950 by fifty percent, far above the state average. The superior court house, last remodeled in 1895, provides three court rooms and very inadequate space for court officials, jurors, and the public. Twice the number of court rooms and a substantial P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 29
expansion of office areas are presently needed. The consultants’ report will doubtless project requirements for the future. 149. The financing authority for new court house construction for the Quincy district court was increased to $2,000,000. St. 1969, c. 208. A bill to increase the amount further to $2,200,000 is pend ing in the legislature.
Plymouth County 150. Serious housing problems for the courts in Plymouth county exist. With the completion of the work on the Knights of Columbus building in Brockton the district court now occupies ex cellent quarters in the equivalent of a new building. To the busy trial lawyer with superior, probate, and district court cases to try the advantage of a central court complex is lacking. 151. Immediate remodeling of the old court house in Brock ton is essential in order to furnish necessary space for the superior and probate courts and their officials. Legislation for this purpose is pending. 152. At Plymouth the addition completed in 1962 has failed to meet the needs of the superior court. With only one jury court room and wholly unsatisfactory space for the clerk, the district at torney, and other offices the court is unable to cope with the increas ing case load. Additional accommodations for present and future operations are needed now. 153. Legislation is pending which would permit an addition to the probate and registry building at Plymouth and the construc tion of a new court house for the Hingham district court. The over crowded conditions in the rooms and corridors of the Hingham court need correction.
Suffolk County 154. In paragraphs 106-111 of this report the status of the Suffolk county court house was discussed. There can be no doubt that the consultants to the special commission to investigate and study court house facilities will recommend new court house con struction. 155. Meanwhile the state and city officials responsible for the support of the courts in Suffolk county have taken no effective 30 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 steps to reach agreement on the financing of this major construc tion project and few have shown any appreciation of the problem. 156. Living conditions, particularly in the old building, have deteriorated further by reason of the noise and dirt coming from the excavation for the new office building at the corner of Tremont and Beacon Streets. 157. Elsewhere in the county little is being done to improve and expand the facilities for the district courts. 158. Visits in the spring of 1969 disclosed some minor improve ments, undertaken apparently at the initiative of the court’s judges and officials. 159. At Dorchester new construction has provided additional fireproof vault space in the basement. There is need for more space for the clerk and the other services of the court. This need is also apparent at West Roxbury. 160. In Roxbury, the court occupies an old building which is inadequate in every respect. At an unknown future date a new struc ture will be provided in the redevelopment area at Dudley Street. Off-street parking for 40 cars has been provided which permits em ployees to get their cars off the street. 161. The second session of the South Boston court is conducted in an open portion of the second floor formerly used as a public li brary. On the same floor arrangements are made for a traffic division operation. 162. The main court room of the East Boston court has been improved with the construction of a modern prisoners’ enclosure. The remodeling on the first floor has provided modern, well-furnished quarters for the probation department and the traffic division. 163. The judge’s lobby at the Chelsea court house has been redecorated with wood panelling. The second session on the third floor is in bad condition with leaks causing discoloration and flaking of paint on the walls and the ceiling. The Charlestown court house presents a picture of benign neglect.
WORCESTER COUNTY 164. Although the Worcester county court house buildings, old and new, continue to provide the best central facilities available anywhere in the Commonwealth, no solution appears to have been P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 31 found for the critical space requirements of the probate court and registry. 165. Thanks to careful maintenance the old county court house in Fitchburg is in good condition but lacks an elevator. The district court quarters in the municipal building are completely inadequate and shabby. 166. The new Milford district court house affords excellent facilities for the court and its officials. Financing has been approved for new buildings for the Clinton, Uxbridge, Webster and Westboro courts, although more money may be required. Legislation is pending for new court house construction at Gardner.
COMMENTS ON THE VARIOUS COURTS
Su p r e m e Ju d ic ia l C o u r t 167. The death of Justice Arthur E. Whittemore on October 1, 1969, marked the end of his distinguished career of public service for the Town of Hingham and for the Commonwealth. He sat as an Asso ciate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for almost fourteen years from the time of his appointment on October 11, 1955. 168. His modest character and great accomplishments were suitably remembered at a memorial service held at the Old Ship Church in Hingham. A memorial will be presented to the Supreme Judicial Court at a later date. 169. His successor, Justice Francis J. Quirico, whose appoint ment has been universally praised, commenced his duties as an Asso ciate Justice on December 1, 1969. He brings to the court the experi ence of many years as City Solicitor of the City of Pittsfield and as Associate Justice of the Superior Court from the date of his first judicial appointment on August 2, 1956. 170. Once again the court maintained its record for disposing of all the cases on its regular docket during the court year. In addition it gave eight advisory opinions. This performance was made possible by summer time work on six advisory opinions requested by the House of Representatives. 171- The erroneous impression was created by some members of the Legislature that the work involved in answering all requests for advisory opinions could be accomplished by a rapid consultation of the law books or by a dubious venture in clairvoyance as to the future 32 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Those critics failed, or refused, to consider the varying difficulty of such questions and to note that a request presenting a novel problem of statutory and constitutional interpretation is entirely different from one already con sidered in some part by the court. 172. A better understanding of the court’s responsibilities under its constitutional mandate to render advisory opinions would improve the legislative process. Requests for an advisory opinion on proposed legislation should be made early, not late, in the consideration of complicated measures. There seems to be no satisfactory reason for late requests except under exceptional circumstances. 173. The court made a considerable reduction in the average time elapsed between the day when cases were taken under considera tion and the day of decision. In 1969 the average time was 37.12 days; in 1968, 42.18 days. 174. The total number of opinions, including advisory opinions, decreased from 343 to 314. However, of the totals, full opinions in creased from 234 to 239, while rescript opinions decreased from 109 to 75. 175. The court continues to be handicapped in its ability to meet the competition for law clerks of superior qualifications. Law school graduates are able to command higher salaries in the larger metropolitan law offices. Continuing effort is needed to secure an adequate appropriation to restore competitive balance.
Su p e r io r C o u r t
176. In the spring of 1969 the court lost the services of Justices Jennie L. Barron and Thomas J. O’Malley through their deaths. The vacancies were filled by the appointments of Alan J. Dimond, Esquire, of Wellesley, and Levin H. Campbell, Esquire, of Cambridge. 177. The vacancy created by Justice Francis J. Quirico’s ap pointment as Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court was filled by the appointment of Paul V. Rutledge, Esquire, of Worcester. The new judges possess excellent qualifications for the exacting work of the court. 178. The principal problems of the court, discussed earlier in this report, continue to be the needs for more judges and for better facilities. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 33
179. The demand for more civil and criminal sessions from all but the smallest counties cannot be met with the attendance of forty- five associate justices. Relief for one county produces strains in an other; primary attention to criminal cases increases delay in the dis position of civil cases. 180. No formula has been found that will act as a substitute for a superior court bench large enough to dispose of the cases as they come to the court and with reserve strength to meet the crisis of present accumulations of untried cases and the emergency demands of the future. 181. The injustices suffered by a seriously injured plaintiff who may have to wait three years for a civil jury trial or by a defendant charged with crime and detained for months before trial are intoler able. The blame for this condition does not rest with the courts.
L a n d C o u r t
182. The court has increased the number of cases disposed of so that it exceeds the number of new entries. The figures show total cases entered, 4,883; dispositions, 5,570. 183. The specialized nature of the work of the court requires not only judges with a sound conveyancing background but also a professional staff of lawyers and engineers with similar qualifications. 184. Lacking at the present time are several essential ingredi ents for more efficient operation of the court’s business. The three judges have no reserve of judicial manpower to assist them in case of absence through illness, vacation, or other good cause.
185. Responsibility for administrative decisions is divided. The judge of the court should have undivided administrative authority with adequate administrative staff to assist him in the execution of his decisions.
186. Through better provision for professional salaries the op erating staff of the court should be brought to full strength and high levels of performance.
187. Modern, properly equipped, courtrooms and offices should be provided. The antiquated quarters in the old building are primi tive beyond description and are made further uninhabitable by the constant noise of building construction next door. 34 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P-D. 166
Probate Courts 188. Upon the retirement of Judge Harry K. Stone of the Plymouth Probate Court Francis P. Murphy, Esquire, of Brockton was appointed. The vacancy caused by the death of Judge Frederick V. McMenimen of the Middlesex Probate Court was filled by the ap pointment of Honorable Edward T. Martin, Special Justice of the Municipal Court of the West Roxbury District. 189. The important development of probation, or rather family service, departments in the probate courts has been discussed in para graphs 39-42 of this report. 190. Following pretty closely the rate of population increases in the various counties, the numbers of petitions for adoption and of libels for divorce show sharp increases in a comparison of 1960 with 1968. 191. The report of Chief Judge Costello contains the following tables for nine counties.
Petitions for A doption The accompanying chart sets forth in detail this increase in the number of petitions for adoption of children: Berkshire Bristol Essex Hampden Middlesex Norfolk Plymouth Suffolk Worcester 1960= 76 116 256 195 628 285 118 449 282 1968= 106 259 495 395 1,201 521 363 495 368
L ibels for D ivorce
Berkshire Bristol Essex Hampden Middlesex Norfolk Plymouth Suffolk Worcester 1960= 239 659 658 1,048 1,644 595 476 1,611 866 1968= 372 1,303 1,416 1,618 3,430 1,250 1,109 2,213 2,018 8 237 1960= , Total libels for divorce filed in all fourteen Counties. 1968= 15,546 192. By St. 1963, c. 820, G. L. c. 215, § 6, was amended to give to the probate courts original and concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme judicial and superior courts of all cases and matters in equity cognizable under the general principals of equity jurisprudence. The probate courts were not given similar jurisdiction of suits in equity arising by virtue of statute. 193. This legislation was designed in part to relieve the superior court of some of its case load and to provide a forum where speedier trial was available. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 35
194. Use of this forum has varied from county to county and has not from year to year been rising sharply. However, the following table, again from the report of the Chief Judge, shows a marked in crease in some counties, in 1968 over 1960.
P e t it io n s in E q u it y Berkshire Bristol Essex Hampden Middlesex Norfolk Plymouth Suffolk Worcester 1960= 23 18 25 47 69 52 24 95 53 1968= 27 29 139 102 183 86 68 229 55 195. In 1960 all probate courts collected a total of fees of $622,137.68; in 1968, $1,033,943.63. With the development of the probation system the probate courts will be the instrumentality for collecting greatly increased amounts of money under alimony and support decrees. 196. No statistics are presently available to determine the amounts which should be credited to the probate courts in this area but it is safe to say that the cost to state and county government of the operation of the probate courts will be more than repaid by the combination of fees received and of the savings in welfare payments resulting from alimony and support receipts. 197. In 1968 probate judges sat in courts other than their own upon assignment of the Chief Judge a total of 204 days. The special judge sat 152 days in the four western counties.
D is t r ic t C o u r t s 198. The largest court system in the Commonwealth, with 161 justices and special justices, handled a steadily increasing volume of criminal cases, up from 514,840 in 1968 to 574,400 in 1969. 199. As an indication of the volume of business of the district courts and of their contribution, direct and indirect, to the cost of government operations, the following table shows the large and in- cieasing sums collected, over $15,600,000 in 1969. 19 6 8 19 6 9 Reciprocal support $ 3,145,719 $ 3,327,506 Other support payments 2,184,926 2,148,018 Traffic, pay by mail ..... 1,499,110 1,631,337 Fines .. 5,582,848 6,670,707 Entry and other fees 438,162 424,532 Removals and other moneys 939,570 1,435,349 $13,790,335 $15,637,449 36 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
200. Chief Justice Nash’s report gives a comprehensive view of the accomplishments of the district courts. Figures on narcotics cases doubled in one year: in 1968, 4,057; in 1969, 8,080. There were 696 juveniles brought before the courts on drug charges. The problems of drug and alcohol addiction have been attacked in court conferences and clinics. 201. The work of the courts covered misdemeanor trials by juries of six, 1,455 appeals disposed of in 361 trial days. The trial of civil cases with juries of six continued in Worcester. 202. Seventeen court clinics serving 36 district courts provided psychiatric services in the examination and treatment of 4,200 indi vidual cases. The program is expanding. 203. Much of the service rendered by district court judges is neither recognized by the public nor, frequently, by lawyers. Illustra tions include justices sitting in courts other than their own, in the appellate divisions, and in the superior court; service on committees; attendance at conferences; performance of administrative duties; su pervision of law school projects; rule making. 204. Also unobserved is the time in chambers devoted to work on decisions, both civil and criminal. In the latter field a district court judge must not only keep abreast of the case and statute law of the Commonwealth but also of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the statutes of the Congress.
The M unicipal Court of the City of Boston 205. Civil entries, after deducting cases removed to the superior court and adding those transferred from the superior court rose to 27,579 in 1969 from 26.848 in 1968. Criminal complaints totalled 198,731 as against 196,489 in the preceding year. 206. The court’s statistics supply more detail than appears in the district court table. A question has been raised as to the means of achieving uniformity in reporting and a clearer picture of the opera tion of the courts. 207. On the criminal side reports from both sources count com plaints, not individuals. Since a single incident may result in several complaints against one individual, it is arguable that an inflated pic ture is given. On the other hand, the statistics should reflect not only judicial effort but also the work in the clerks’ offices. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 37
208. Improvement in the quality of the figures published by this office, compatible with accurate comparison with past reports, is de sirable. 209. Again, on the criminal side, a variable in a single court may result in sharp change in the statistics. For example, complaints for pedestrian violations dropped from 4,220 in 1968 to 1,981 in 1969; pedestrian control notices (J-Walking) 8,466 in 1968, 3,041 in 1969. 210. The court turned over to the Commonwealth and the City of Boston the sum of $2,549,163, an amount well in excess of the cost of operations.
JUVENILE COURTS
B oston Juvenile Court 211. The upward trend in the case load of the court has con tinued with trials requiring double sessions about three days a week. Another probation officer, a second assistant clerk and another sten ographer have been added to the staff. 212. Since practically every juvenile qualifies for assigned coun sel, the Massachusetts Defenders Committee has been supplying the services of three attorneys to the court. The number was recently re duced to two. Efficient operation during most of the year requires at least three defenders. 213. The drug problem is a major concern of the court, both because of the sharp increase in narcotics cases and because of the discouraging lack of knowledge of and facilities for effective treatment of young addicts. 214. The following table gives a comparison of narcotics com plaints m the years 1968 and 1969:
1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Possession Boys 39 71 Girls 5 44 9 80
Being present Boys 15 30 Girls 8 23 7 37
Illegal sales Boys 2 5 Girls 2 5 38 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Glue sniffing Boys 8 15 Girls 8 15
Totals 77 137 215. The court is continuing its after school programs for boy and girl probationers with professional personnel furnishing recrea tional, educational, and remedial training. 216. Badly needed are adequate modern facilities for the court. Its present quarters in the old building are crowded and dingy, unsuit able for the reception and disposition of juvenile problems.
Springfield and Worcester Juvenile Courts 217. The newly created juvenile courts in Springfield and Wor cester have commenced operations in spite of serious difficulties con nected with staffing and with provision for their accommodations. The next year’s report of this office will contain an account of their per formance. CONCLUSION 218. A statement recently received from the court administra tor of a sister state applies in some respects to the problems of the courts of Massachusetts. The gist of the statement is that some twenty- two years ago the court system of that state was considered a model for the rest of the country but with progress elsewhere the system by standing still is really falling behind. 219. The court system in this Commonwealth does not suffer in most respects by comparison with those of the other states. But many of the lessons learned from court reform efforts in the rest of the country could usefully be applied here. 220. The office of the Executive Secretary has continued to enjoy the help of the judges and other officers of the various courts and of the executive and legislative departments. 221. The opinions and recommendations contained in this re port are those of the writer and for them the court has no responsi bility. Respectfully submitted, R ichard D. Gerould Executive Secretary 301 New Court House Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (Tel. 617 227 2841) P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 39
FOREWORD TO APPENDICES The court cost tables, state and county, in Appendix I, again show increases in both gross and net expenditures. The former were higher by $3,256,000; the latter, by $2,311,000. The rate of increase slowed down. The major portion of the increased gross costs of operating the courts was once more borne by the counties. Commonwealth costs rose $373,832, or about 5%; county costs increased $2,882,400, or about 10.5%. The methods of cost reporting are unchanged, except that no break down in county costs of the probate courts was available. The capital costs of new court house construction or of improvements are reflected in the figures only to the extent of interest charges on bonded debt. 40 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Cost Totals: 1957-1969
(Thousands)
Gross N et 1957 ...... $ 15,486 $ 13,204 1958 ...... 17,312 14,628 1959 ...... 18,507 15,747 1960 ...... 18,847 16,162 1961 ...... 19,711 16,880 1962 ...... 21,343 18,118 1963 ...... 22,120 17,955 1964 ...... 23,930 19,600 1965 ...... 26,494 21,968 1966 ...... 26,960 21,541 1967 ...... 30,148 23,623 1968 ...... 34,536 28,387 1969 ...... 37,792 30,698 Brief comments on the work accomplished by each court pre cede the statistics in Appendix II.
APPENDIX I
C omputations of the Costs of O perating the Courts The following sources of information furnished the bases for determining the cost of administering and operating the various courts of the Commonwealth. 1. Public Document No. 29 (Annual Report on the statistics of county finances for the year ending December 31, 1968, Bureau of Accounts, Department of Corporations and Taxation). 2. House Bill No. 4745, 1969 Session (estimates of county receipts and expenditures for the year ending December 31, 1969). 3. Budget Recommendations of his Excellency, Acting Gover nor Francis J. Sargent, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1969, and ending June 30, 1970. 4. Financial Report of the Comptroller of the Commonwealth for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969. (Public Document No. 140). 5. City of Boston and County of Suffolk Budget Recommenda tions for the fiscal year 1969. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 41
6. Summary of receipts and expenditures for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1968, developed from the records of the Audit ing Department, City of Boston. 7. Records of Real Property Division of the City of Boston (material developed by personal contact and conference). 8. Records of County Commissioners and Treasurers examined. 42 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
SUMMARY OF COSTS OF ADMINISTERING AND OPERATING ALL COURTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
G r o s s N e t Commonwealth of Massachusetts $ 7,499,543.92 $; 6,446,262.94 Barnstable ...... 541,641.01 420,089.42 Berkshire ...... 563,373.54 461,156.31 Bristol ...... 1,517,531.15 1,254,432.55 Dukes County ...... 55,421.54 49,019.27 Essex ...... 2,202,793.04 1,896,008.65 Franklin ...... 240,520.20 202,457.34 Hampden ...... 1,850,180.12 1,552,337.60 Hampshire ...... 358,060.30 281,674.52 Middlesex ...... 6,514,788.05 5,836,664.24 Nantucket ...... 36,983.94 32,394.82 Norfolk ...... 2,097,303.18 1,810,699.26 Plymouth ...... 1,248,869.07 987,999.71 Suffolk ...... 10,378,391.88 6,677,336.39 Worcester ...... 2,686,611.28 2,326,919.82 Commitments* ...... 462,705.54
Total $37,792,012.22 $30,698,158.38
* (Total shown does not include Suffolk County. Some of the expense attendant to commit ments is a proper court expense, but to determine the actual judicial cost would require an examination of each and every voucher submitted for payment to the county treasurers in con nection with commitments.)
N ote: Commonwealth figures are for fiscal year ending June 30, 1969. County figures are for calendar year 1968. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
NET COST OF COURTS PAID BY THE COMMONWEALTH (For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1969) Supreme Judicial Court 1,391,049.92* Superior Court ...... 1,536,684.26 Probate and Insolvency Courts ...... 1,455,015.82 Land Court ...... 477,656.53 District Courts—Administration ...... 22,620.01 Board of Bar Examiners ...... 22,576.94 Pensions (Retired Judges) ...... 184,893.96 Judicial Counci- ...... 17,500.00 Probation Service ...... 998,265.52 Suffolk County Court House Maintenance (Acts of 1935, c. 474) ...... 340,000.00
Grand T otal $ 6,446,262.94
* ($833,673.51 of this item was expended for Massachusetts Defenders Committee.)
Supreme Judicial Court Justices’ Salaries and Expenses ...... $ 212,000.00 Clerk and Assistant Clerk Salaries ...... 38,980.92 Clerical Assistance to Clerk ...... 15,077.91 Clerical Assistance to Justices ...... 142,114.00 Court Expenses ...... 14,600.00 Court Officers and Messenger Salaries ...... 12,041.16 Clerk and Assistant Clerks for Suffolk County Salaries ...... 11,263.19 Social Law Library ...... 7,000.00 Office of Executive Secretary ...... 57,050.10 Reporter of Decisions Salaries and Administration ...... 48,905.58 Massachusetts Defenders Committee ...... 833,673.51
Total (Gross) ...... $ 1,392,706.37 Less—Receipts ...... — 1,656.45
Total (Net) ...... $ 1,391,049.92
Superior Court Justices’ Salaries and Expenses ...... $ 1,275,146.96 Assistant Clerk (Suffolk County) ...... 5,781.16 Court Expenses ...... 178,744.31 District Court Justices in Superior Court Salaries ...... 34,809.46 Expenses ...... 9,304.87 Special District Court Justices’ Salaries (G. L. c. 212, § 14E) 33,000.00
Total (Gross) ...... $ 1,536,786.76 Less—Receipts ...... — 102.50
Total (N et) $ 1,536,684.26 44 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Probate and Insolvency Courts Judges’ Salaries (Additional Sittings) ...... $ 15,000.00 Judges’ Expenses ...... 1,500.00 Reimbursement for Official Bonds ...... 800.00 Administrative Committee ...... 500.00 Administration ...... 21,992.09
$ 39,792.09 Salaries and Expenses Barnstable County ...... $ 64,736.04 Berkshire County ...... 67,031.04 Bristol County ...... 144,768.27 Dukes County ...... 18,714.20 E ssex County ...... 188,579.36 F ranklin County ...... 52,744.43 H ampden County ...... 195,373.83 H ampshire County ...... 53,763.75 M iddlesex County ...... 421,556.79 Nantucket Co u n ty ...... 20,111.60 N orfolk County ...... 242,381.81 Plymouth County ...... 128,572.89 Suffolk County ...... 495,745.80 Worcester County ...... 195,098.31
Total (Gross) ...... $ 2,328,970.21 Less—Receipts ...... —873,954.41
Total (N et) ...... $ 1,455,015.80
LAND COURT Administration ...... $ 590,753.55 Less—Receipts ...... — 113,097.02
Total (N et) ...... $ 477,656.53
DISTRICT COURTS Administration ...... $ 22,620.01
BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Administration Expenses ...... $ 60,053.54 Less—Receipts ...... —37,476.60
Total (Net) ...... $ 22,576.94
PENSIONS Retired Judges ...... $ 184,893.96
JUDICIAL COUNCIL Administration ...... $ 17,500.00 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 45
PROBATION SERVICE Office of Commissioner of Probation Salaries and Administration Expenses ...... $ 465,776.85 Committee on Probation Administration Expenses...... 700.00 $ 466,476.85 Superior Court* Probation Officers’ Salaries ...... $ 549,268.78 Office—Supervisor of Probation ...... 9,513.89 $ 558,782.67
Total (Gross) ...... $ 1.025.259.52 Less—Receipts ...... —26,994.00
Total (N et) ...... $ 998,265.52
* (By Acts of 1956, c. 731, § 29, compensation of probation officers appointed for the Su- perior Court is paid by the Commonwealth.)
SUFFOLK COUNTY COURT HOUSE Maintenance (Acts of 1935, c. 474) ...... $ 340,000.00
SUFFOLK COUNTY Summary of Court Expenditures
G r o s s N e t Supreme Judicial Court ...... $ 175,235.04 $ 170,894.31 Superior Court ...... 3,732,327.59 3,619,640.59 Probate and Insolvency Court ...... 135,178.31 135.174.31 Municipal Court of the City of Boston ...... 1,610,254.62 533,961.19* Municipal Court of the Charlestown District 169,439.41 131,352.83 East Boston District Court ...... 258,468.94 194,822.16 Municipal Court of the South Boston District 192,347.28 103,258.54 Municipal Court of the Dorchester District .. 562,811.18 375,650.63 Municipal Court of the Roxbury District .... 858,000.52 431.196.32 Municipal Court of the West Roxbury District 314,262.09 236,786.71 Municipal Court of the Brighton District .... 216,649.60 77,841.76 District Court of Chelsea ...... 245,094.99 173,905.13 Boston Juvenile Court ...... 387,460.15 387,005.15 Pemberton Square Court House ...... 1,211,832.24 864,739.22 Social Law Library ...... 2,000.00 2, 000.00 Mental Health ...... 55,000.00 55,000.00 Pensions and Annuities ...... 252,029.92 252,029.92
Total ...... $10,378,391.88 $ 6,677,336.39
(Excess Receipts Over Expenses.) 46 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P D. 166
SUFFOLK COUNTY
C it y o f B o s t o n
C o u n t y C o u r t E xpenditures
S u p r e m e J u d ic ia l C o u r t Clerk’s Office for Suffolk County $175,235.04 Less—Receipts —4,340.73
Total (Net) $170,894.31
S u p e r i o r C o u r t General Expenses * Salaries & Expenses $220,296.58 Court Officers’ Division ** Salaries & Expenses 565,909.73 Criminal Expenses Clerks & Clerical Assistants, etc. Salaries & Expenses $451,529.80 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 372,200.13 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 51,086.86 District Attorney’s Office 514,245.22 Probation Department 165,041.13
Total (Gross) Criminal $1,554,103.14 Less—Receipts —26,765.85
Total (Net) Criminal $1,527,337.29
S u p e r i o r C o u r t Civil Expenses Clerks & Clerical Assistants, etc. $890,323.49 Masters 26.430.00 Auditors 75,429.60 Conciliators 25.440.00 Arbitrators 105.00 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 374,290.59
Total (Gross) Civil $1,392,018.14 Less—Receipts —85,921.15
Total (Net) Civil $1,306,096.99 Grand Total (Net) Superior Court $3,619,640.59
* (Stenographic & confidential messenger; also furnishes supplies, materials and equipment for both Civil & Criminal Sessions.) ** (Deputy Sheriffs & Court Officers; salaries, expenses, etc. for Civil & Criminal Sessions.) P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 47
Probate and Insolvency Court General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $135,178.31 Less—Receipts —4.00
Total (Net) $135,174.31
Municipal Court of the City of Boston General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $1,610,254.62 Receipts $2,144,215.81
Total (Net) $533,961.19* •(Excess receipts over expenditures.)
Municipal Court of the Charlestown D istrict General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $145,154.41 Maintenance* 24,285.00
Total (Gross) $169,439.41 Less—Receipts —38,086.58
Total (Net) $131,352.83 ♦ (About one-half of building is used by Police Department & Civil Defense; heating expense is paid by Police Department.)
East Boston District Court General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $218,528.94 Maintenance* 39,940.00
Total (Gross) $258,468.94 Less—Receipts —63,646.78
Total (Net) $194,822.16 charged„1 * iB.UlInn^ to Boston Real Property by Ci?.rt' Division.) Police Department supplies heat; Operating Personnel
Municipal Court of the South Boston D istrict General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $163,041.28 Maintenance* 29,306.00
Total (Gross) $192,347.28 Less—Receipts —89,088.74
Total (Net) $103,258.54 (Court uses about one-third of building.) 48 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Municipal Court of the Dorchester District General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $505,331.18 Maintenance* 57,480.00
Total (Gross) $562,811.18 Less—Receipts — 187,160.55
Total (Net) $375,650.63 * (Building used 100% by Court.)
Municipal Court of the Roxbury District General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $790,820.52 Maintenance* 67,180.00
Total (Gross) $858,000.52 Less—Receipts —426,804.20
Total (Net) $431,196.32 * (Building used 100% by Court.)
Municipal Court of the West Roxbury D istrict General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $262,061.09 Maintenance* 52,201.00
Total (Gross) $314,262.09 Less—Receipts —77,475.38
Total (Net) $236,786.71 * (Building used 100% by Court.)
Municipal Court of the Brighton D istrict General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $169,339.60 Maintenance* 47,310.00
Total (Gross) $216,649.60 Less—Receipts — 138,807.84
Total (Net) $77,841.76 * (75% of building is used by Court.)
District Court of Chelsea General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $227,262.99 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 49
Maintenance* 17,832.00
Total (Gross) $245,094.99 Less—Receipts —71,189.86
Total (Net) $173,905.13
* (About two-thirds of building is used by Court.)
Boston Juvenile Court General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $387,460.15 Less—Receipts —455.00
Total (Net) $387,005.15
Pemberton Square Court H ouse Maintenance Salaries & Expenses $1,211,832.24 Less—Statutory share of Commonwealth & Telephone commissions —347,093.02
Total (Net) $864,739.22
Social Law Library General Expenses $2,000.00
Mental H ealth General Expenses Salaries & Expenses $55,000.00
Pensions and A nnuities General Expenses $252,029.92
BARNSTABLE
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $35,122.51 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 9,533.48 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 7,363.79 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $11,084.50 Probation Department 9,010.98 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 29,314.71 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 7,224.44 50 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
District Attorney’s Office 6,593.47 Mise. Expenses 4,217.07
$67,445.17 C iv il (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $9,331.10 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 21,492.88 Auditors 1,852.50 Masters 442.50 Misc. Expenses 1,036.87 $34,155.85 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $284,425.86 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Maintenance & Operation 40,401.85 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 63,192.50
Total (Gross) $541,641.01 Less—Receipts — 121,551.59
Total (Net) $420,089.42
BERKSHIRE
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $35,734.51 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 9,019.04 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 13,194.75 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $19,232.62 Probation Department 9,221.25 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 62,857.83 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 7,892.08 District Attorney’s Office 24,543.27 Misc. Expenses 225.00
$123,972.05 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 51
C iv i l (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $7,634.57 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 30,609.13 Auditors 10,290.75 Masters 589.25 Referees 1,095.00 Misc. Expenses 112.75
$50,331.45 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $296,554.57 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 30,854.67 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 3,712.50
Total (Gross) $563,373.54 Less—Receipts — 102,217.23
Total (Net) $461,156.31
BRISTOL County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $152,066.76 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 21,559.15 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 43,475.19 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $31,785.29 Probation Department 29,250.32 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 136,847.74 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 17,705.46 District Attorney’s Office 31,263.87 Misc. Expenses 17,204.21
$264,056.89 C iv il (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $57,668.00 52 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Jurors (Fees, etc.) 83,524.95 Auditors 1.642.50 Masters 6.757.50 Mise. Expenses 5,012.52
$154,605.47 District Courts Salaries & Expenses 677,273.69 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 202,689.00 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 1,805.00
Total (Gross) $1,517,531.15 Less—Receipts —263,098.60
Total (Net) $1,254,432.55
DUKES COUNTY
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $6,271.96 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 1,576.02 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 1,785.87 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $1,104.37 Probation Department 344.31 District Attorney’s Office 226.40 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 3,123.00 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 435.66 Misc. Expenses 539.15
$5,772.89 C i v i l (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $900.85 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 592.65 Masters 1,147.50 Misc. Expenses 32.40
$2,673.40 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 53
District Courts Salaries & Expenses $27,201.15 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 6,620.25 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 3,520.00
Total (Gross) $55,421.54 Less—Receipts ■6,402.27
Total (Net) $49,019.27
ESSEX
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $200,544.84 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 52,097.26 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 35,995.70 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $50,963.00 Probation Department 35,768.55 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 134,198.01 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 23,449.85 District Attorney’s Office 44,761.20 Transcripts, Process & Extradition 24,587.65 Misc. Expenses 12,136.50
$325,864.76 C iv il (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $77,462.00 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 174,976.43 Auditors 46,527.28 Masters 12,020.75 Commissioners 220.00 Mise. Expenses 1,023.71
$312,230.17 54 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
District Courts Salaries & Expenses $1,049,478.47 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 203,848.50 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 22,733.34
Total (Gross) $2,202,793.04 Less—Receipts —•306,784.39
Total (Net) $1,896,008.65
FRANKLIN
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $31,065.76 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 3,434.82 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 10,058.04 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $9,098.79 Probation Department 2,865.99 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 28,938.84 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 2,914.96 District Attorney’s Office 5,666.82 Misc. Expenses 3,411.71
$52,897.11 C iv il (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $6,066.30 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 16,510.98 Auditors 180.00 Misc. Expenses 2,662.29
$25,419.57 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $99,125.90 (Includes courthouse rentals) P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 55
Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 18,519.00
Total (Gross) $240,520.20 Less—Receipts 38,062.86
Total (Net) $202,457.34
HAMPDEN
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $156,645.29 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 47,669.29 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 33,282.42 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $30,298.86 Probation Department 23,971.05 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 63,450.20 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 12,223.36 District Attorney’s Office 29,179.56 Travel 19,358.65 Murder Trials 77,616.00 Misc. Expenses 6,360.70
$262,458.38 C iv il (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $103,794.06 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 168,640.69 Auditors 5,408.75 Masters 2,944.50 Conciliators 1,380.00 Mise. Expenses 4,847.42
$287,015.42 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $886,134.94 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 172,474.38 56 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 4,500.00
Total (Gross) $1,850,180.12 Less—Receipts —297,842.52
Total (Net) $1,552,337.60
HAMPSHIRE County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $39,499.76 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 12,177.94 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 12,175.27 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $16,226.00 Probation Department 4,173.99 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 45,835.89 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 2,960.75 Travel & Meals 2,161.32 District Attorney’s Office 8,447.35 Misc. Expenses 5,380.14
$85,185.44 C i v i l (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers 4,823.00 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 15,536.15 Auditors 1,785.00 Masters 2,499.45 Misc. Expenses 1,162.41
$25,806.01 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $164,125.19 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 19,090.69
Total (Gross) $358,060.30 Less—Receipts —76,385.78
Total (Net) $281,674.52 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 57
MIDDLESEX
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $540,614.91 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 85,386.06 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 87,812.13 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $205,721.39 Probation Department 87,222.80 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 219,296.76 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 51,553.66 Travel, Meals & Housing 12,808.41 District Attorney’s Office 204,053.02
$780,656.04 C iv il (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $308,904.51 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 311,289.74 Auditors 39,655.60 Masters 19,664.35 Mise. Expenses 17,487.00
$697,001.20 District Courts Salaries & Expenses 3,329,174.49 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 706,439.33 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 287,703.89
Total (Gross) $6,514,788.05 Less—Receipts —678,123.81
Total (Net) $5,836,664.24
NANTUCKET
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $6,362.90 58 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 525.20 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 1,241.37 Superior Court* C r im in a l & C iv il Grand Jury $792.56 Probation Department 482.70 Trial Jury 2,025.04 Stenographer 274.40 Sheriff & Deputies 436.65 Witnesses 822.16 Misc. Expenses 109.57
$4,943.08 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $22,311.39 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte- nance & Operation 400.00 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 1,200.00
Total (Gross) $36,983.94 Less—Receipts —4,589.12
Total (Net) $32,394.82 * (Criminal & Civil expenditures are not separated.)
NORFOLK
C o u n t y C o u r t E xpenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries and Expenses $149,829.02 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 73,138.90 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 10,494.14 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $80,646.82 Probation Department 25,074.61 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 132,021.60 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 30,010.01 District Attorney’s Office 69,540.69 Misc. Expenses 19,794.39
$357,088.12 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 59
C iv il (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & Stenographers $47,074.30 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 155,197.05 Auditors 13,524.75 Masters 6,844.80 Mise. Expenses 5,389.73
$228,030.63 District Courts Salaries & Expenses 934,615.88 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 333,456.48 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. p. 1968 10,650.00
Total (Gross) $2,097,303.18 Less—Receipts _ 286,603.92
Total (Net) $1,810,699.26
PLYMOUTH
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $112,106.28 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 51,905.13 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 10,300.38 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $42,369.73 Probation Department 26,507.29 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 133,045.52 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 23,192.28 District Attorney’s Office 28,920.62 Contractual Service (Travel, Transpor tation, etc.) 6,756.85 Legal Services (Ct. Appt.) 11,831.00 Misc. Expenses 6,217.72
$278,841.01 60 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
C i v i l (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) Court Officers & & Stenographers $41,103.77 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 72,590.56 Auditors 1,803.75 Masters 4,137.00 Commissioners 350.00 Conciliator 306.00 Misc. Expenses 152.40 $120,443.48 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $583,260.68 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 84,101.00 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 7,911.11
Total (Gross) $1,248,869.07 Less—Receipts —260,869.36
Total (Net) $987,999.71
WORCESTER
County Court Expenditures Clerk of Courts Salaries & Expenses $269,382.29 Probate Court & Registry Salaries & Expenses 28,566.69 Law Libraries Salaries & Expenses 49,637.11 Superior Court C r im in a l Court Officers & Stenographers $129,178.86 Probation Department 27,283.29 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 166,954.15 Witnesses (Fees, etc.) 33,194.99 District Attorney’s Office 34,479.40 Misc. Expenses 14,817.12 $405,907.81 C iv i l (Includes Supreme Ju dicial & Land Cts.) P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 61
Court Officers & Stenographers $109,381.20 Jurors (Fees, etc.) 175,475.00 Auditors 16,820.00 Masters 11,778.69 Conciliators 606.89 Misc. Expenses 28,506.65 $342,568.43 District Courts Salaries & Expenses $1,281,930.99 (Includes courthouse rentals) Courthouse Mainte nance & Operation 270,102.96 Courthouse Bonded Debt Int. pd. 1968 38,515.00
Total (Gross) $2,686,611.28 Less—Receipts —359,691.46
Total (Net) $2,326,919.82 62 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 APPENDIX II
R e p o r t o f t h e St a t is t ic s o f t h e W o r k A ccomplished b y the V a r io u s C o u r t s The following table gives twelve years of reports of total civil and criminal entries in the various courts. In 1958 total entries were 567,691; in 1969, 1,193,879, an increase of about 110%. In the same period the gross cost of operating the courts in creased from $17,312,000 to $37,792,000, up approximately 118%.
TOTAL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ENTRIES (A ll Courts) T o ta l C iv il C r im in a l Civil and Criminal 1958 273,008 294,683 567,691 1959 274,398 297,415 571,813 1960 285,818 321,734 607,552 1961 302,184 331,528 633,712 1962 308,734 366,526 675,260 1963 320,082 410,448 730,530 1964 382,647 424,255 806,902 1965 391,285 479,609 870,894 1966 382,776 565,571 948,347 1967 395,898 707,186 1,103,084 1968 398,161 724,828 1,122,989 1969 404,903 788,976 1,193,879 Civil and criminal entries in the various courts appear in the fol- lowing tables for the years ending June 30, 1968, and June 30, 1969. Next are the statistics for each court with comments. Both civil and criminal entries increased to their highest re corded levels. The former rose about 1.7%; the latter, slightly more than 8.8%.
CIVIL ENTRIES
1 9 6 9 1 9 6 8 13th Report 12th Report Supreme Judicial Court, law ...... 1,620 1,490 Supreme Judicial Court, equity ...... 115 113
1,735 1,603 Superior Court, law . 36,133* 35,208 Superior Court, equity 5,603 5,501
41,736 40,709 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 63
Land Court ...... 4,883 5,141 Probate Courts, probate ...... 104,670 96,679 Probate Courts, divorce ...... 15,546 14,241 Probate Courts, commitments 471 483
120,687 111,403 Municipal Court of the City of Boston: Net after removals ...... 23,756 24,185 Supplementary process ...... 1,090 1,086 Small Claims ...... 1,132 1,061 Reciprocal Support ...... 195 209
26,173 26,541 District Courts: Net after removals ...... 86,404 86,589 Supplementary process ...... 29,158 31,605 Small Claims ...... 87,569 87,619 Commitments ...... 4,392 4,636 Reciprocal Support ...... 2,166 2,315
209,689 212,764
Total civil entries 404,903 ’398,161 * (Includes 1,752 prior year cases retransferred this year.)
CRIMINAL ENTRIES
1 9 6 9 1 9 6 8 13th Report 12th Report Superior Court: Indictments ...... 13,371 11,524 Action on bail bonds ...... 76 77 Complaints after waiver of indictments 7 0
13,454 11,601 Municipal Court of the City of Boston: General ...... 198,731 196,498 Inquests ...... 0 0
198,731 196,498 District Courts: General ...... 574,400 514,840 Inquests ...... 0 0 Boston Juvenile Court 2,391 1,889 Total criminal entries 788,976 724,828 64 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Again, in the first part of the following table, a comparison is made between the current year, the preceding year, and ten years ago. The same number of cases were entered as in the previous year. The number of full opinions, including advisory opinions, increased from 234 in 1968 to 239 in 1969; rescript opinions decreased from 109 in 1968 to 75 in 1969. The average period in days from consideration of cases by the court to decision decreased from 42.18 to 37.12. All cases were decided during the year.
C ases on A ppeal
O r ig in 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 5 9 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 8 -1 9 6 9 Single Justice Session Law ...... 9 25 18 Equity ...... 7 4 6 Superior Court Law ...... 159 168 163 Equity ...... 63 80 71 Workmen’s Compensation ...... 8 14 9 Land Court ...... 5 6 7 Probate Courts ...... 26 31 22 District and Boston Municipal Courts 15 7 10
Total ...... 292 335 306
1958-1959 1967-1968 1968-1969 Opinions ...... 243 226 231 Rescript Opinions ...... 49 109 75
Total ...... 292 335 306 Advisory opinions...... 1 8 8
Total ...... 293 343 314
1967-1968 1968-1969 Decision of lower court modified and affirmed 4 1% 1' 3% Decision of lower court affirmed 224 67% 212i 69% Decision of lower court reversed 75 22% 6S! 22% No decision in lower court ...... 32 10% 18 6%
Total ...... 335 100% 306 100% Cases argued ...... 291 87% 256 84% Submitted on briefs ...... 34 10% 40 13% Argued and briefs* ...... 10 3% 10 3%
Total ...... 335 100% 306 100% • Argued by one side. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 65
County of origin 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 Barnstable ...... 11 6 Berkshire ...... 2 1 Bristol ...... 16 15 Dukes ...... — 1 Essex ...... 22 17 Franklin ...... — 2 Hampden ...... 15 9 Hampshire ...... 1 5 Middlesex ...... 55 53 Norfolk ...... 20 25 Plymouth ...... 21 10 Suffolk ...... 146 145 Worcester ...... 26 17
Total ...... 335 306 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 Days from entry to consideration (average) . 136.01 95.23 Days from consideration to decision (average) 42.18 37.12
Total ...... 178.19 132.35 Civil cases ...... 275 244 Criminal cases ...... 60 62
Total ...... 335 306 Cases entered Law ...... 238 241 Equity ...... 143 140
Total ...... 381 381
Suprem e Judicial Court for Suffolk County
Single Justice Session Two Y ear Comparison of Statistics
1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Total Entries on Law Docket ...... 1,490 1,620 Total Entries on Equity Docket ...... 113 115
Total ...... 1,603 1,735
L a w D o c k e t Petitions for Admission to the Bar ...... 1,255 1,372 Appeals from Decision of Appellate Tax Board ...... 62 59 Application for Discharge under Chapter 123, § 91 .... 4 10 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari ...... 10 5 Petitions for Writ of Error ...... 43 55 Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus ...... 25 13 Petitions for Writ of Mandamus ...... 37 27 All others ...... 54 79
Total ...... 1,490 1,620 66 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk September 1, 1968 to September 1, 1969
REPORT
L a w D o c k e t Petitions for Admission to the Bar ...... 1,372 Appeals from Decision of Appellate Tax Board ...... 59 Applications for Discharge under Chap. 123, §91 ...... 10 Application for Interlocutory Appeal under Chap. 278, §28E ...... 5 Application for release on bail pending appeal to United States Supreme Court ...... Application for Stay of Execution ...... 1 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari ...... 5 Petitions for Writ of Error ...... 55 Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus ...... 13 Informations ...... Petitions for Writ of Mandamus ...... 27 Petition for Writ of Mandamus under Chap. 31, §46A ...... 1 Petitions for Writ of Prohibition ...... 8 Petitions to Establish Truth of Exceptions ...... 12 Petitions for Late Appeal ...... 8 Petition for Late Appeal under Chap. 211, §11 ...... 1 Petition for Late Appeal under Chap. 214, §28 ...... 1 Petitions for Late Appeal under Chap. 278, §32A ...... 2 Petitions for Late Appeal under Chap. 278, §33H ...... 3 Petition to Suspend Execution of Sentence and for Admission to Bail ...... 2 Petitions under Chap. 211, §3 ...... 7 Petition for leave to transmit transcript of testimony and evidence to Full Court in original form under Rule 101 ...... 1 Petition for leave to file Assignments of Error late ...... 1 Petition for Suspension of Decree of Probate Court pending Appeal under Chap. 215, §15 ...... • Petition for Declaratory Judgment ...... 1 Petition for release on bail ...... 3 Petitions under Chap. 211, §4A ...... 2 Petitions under Chapter 211, §3 ...... 3 Petition to stay commencement of jury trial ...... 1 Petitions for Reduction of Bail ...... 4 Petition for transfer from Bridgewater, C. 123, §91 ...... 1 Petition for Allowance of Appeal ...... Petition for Assessment of Damages ...... 1 Petition for Admission to Bail pending Appeal ...... Petition for Issuance of Extraordinary Writ ...... 3
Total Entries on Law Docket 1,620 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 67
Equity Docket Bills of Complaint ...... 4 Bills for Declaratory Judgment ...... 11 Bills for Declaratory Relief ...... 3 Bill for Declaratory Relief under Chap. 231A ...... 1 Bills in Equity ...... 4 Bill of Review ...... 1 Information ...... 1 Bill to revive action against estate of deceased person under Chap. 197, §10 ...... 1 Appeal from Decision of Department of Public Utilities ...... 1 Application for Stay of Order of Department of Public Utilities .... 1 Application for Stay under Administrative Procedure Act, Chap. 30A, §14 ...... 1 Complaint pursuant to G. L., Chap. 93, §4 ...... 1 Petitions for Appeal ...... 3 Petition for Appeal under Chap. 25, §5 ...... 1 Petition to Appeal from Probate Court decree ...... 1 Petitions for Cy Pres ...... 2 Petitions for Dissolution under Chap. 180, §11A ...... 14 Petitions for Dissolution under Chap. 155, §50A ...... 3 Petitions for Dissolution under Chap. 156B, §99 ...... 9 Petitions for Dissolution under Chap. 156B, §101 ...... 8 Petition to Dismiss Appeal ...... 1 Petitions for Late Appeal under Chap. 211, §11 ...... 3 Petitions for Late Appeal under Chap. 214, §28 ...... 5 Petitions for Late Appeal under Chap. 215, §15 ...... 2 Petition under G. I.., Chap. 214 ...... 3 Petition for Late Appeal, under Chap. 215, §6 ...... 1 Petition for Late Appeal under Chap. 231, §135 ...... 1 Petition for Suspension of Decree under Chap. 214, §22 ...... 11 Petitions for Suspension of Decree of Probate Court under Chap. 215, §23 ...... 3 Petition for Reformation ...... 1 Petition to Establish Truth of Exceptions ...... 1 Petition for Adjustment by Comparison under C. 204, §14 ...... 1 Petition for Instructions ...... 1 Petition for partial transfer of cause from Superior Court to the Supreme Judicial Court ...... 3 Petition to sell land and building free of charitable trust ...... 1 Petition to Suspend Decree under Chap. 152, §17 ...... 1 Petition for Appointment of Trustee ...... 1 Petition for Appointment of Successor Trustee of the Chauncey Hall Scholarship Fund ...... 1 Petition under Chap. 231 A, §2 ...... 1 Motion for Transfer under Chap. 211, §4A ...... i Petition to Remove under Chap. 211, § 4 A ...... 1
Total Entries on Equity Docket ...... 115 Total Entries on Both Dockets ...... 1 735 68 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166
SUPERIOR COURT The first table below contains a comparison in summary form for the years 1958, 1968, and 1969 of civil and criminal trials by Superior Court justices, new entries, and dispositions. In civil cases the last two years’ figures indicate that the court is disposing of about as many cases as are entered, but is not reducing its back log. On the criminal side, although dispositions are increas ing, the court is falling behind because of the greater increase in the number of entries.
SUPERIOR COURT
C iv il a n d C r im in a l (Law and Equity)
1958 1968 1969 Trials during year by Superior Court justices Civil ...... 2,761 2,778 2,835 Criminal ...... 2,407 2,833 2,116
Totals ...... 5,168 5,611 4,951 cases Civil entries ...... 39,030* 39,059* 39,984* Criminal indictments, etc. .. 15,230 24,735 26,508
Totals ...... 54,260 63,794 66,492 Cases disposed of Civil ...... 43,655 39,592 39,523 Criminal ...... 14,806 22,842 23,703
Totals 58,461 62,434 63,226
* Retransfers not included.
SUPERIOR COURT A summary of civil statistics for 1968 and 1969 follows: CIVIL STATISTICS
I. L aw C ases—J ury and N on-Jury
19 6 8 1969 Trials during year by Superior Court justices ...... 2,100 2,215 Jury verdicts and findings by the court ...... 2,476 2,298
On hand— start of year .... 52,055 52,740 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 I 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 ( 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 39 | 40 | 41 ). 42 1 43 1 44 1 45 1 46 - — ■ 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 H ). ------Prior Year Equity Cases GQ Transferred No. Cases Entered During Year Trials by Non-triable Docket Remaining Triable *® Ba r n s t a b l e 0 0 23 0 3 0 6 55 73 0 0 0 40 0 19 0 2 61 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 55 41 1 37 55 43 55 41 5 , Motor Torts---- 158 11 0 0 0 76 4 31 0 2 113 12 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 11 0 107 0 3 146 8 0 161 11 1 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 91 10 0 54 0 6 70 9 0 91 10 0 1 0 1 I t Other Torts---- 99 10 0 0 0 44 0 8 0 0 52 8 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 49 1 47 0 0 49 0 0 2 0 Land Takings... 38 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 27 5 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 59 0 2 14 2 13 0 2 59 0 3 0 5 All Others...... 3 55 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 19 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 358 121 2 215 0 78 308 53 0 358 121 4 11 2 14 76 357 191 180 368 16 TOTALS...... 353 149 0 0 0 206 4 58 0 4 272 29 4 0 10 3 8 0 0 Be r k s h i r e 113 44 0 1 0 78 0 11 0 0 89 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 53 3 59 1 17 80 18 0 113 53 3 8 2 1 2 33 1 0 0 0 0 270 18 71 175 1 14 235 13 0 270 18 8 4 4 1 Motor Torts.... 320 25 0 0 0 178 0 20 0 6 204 20 1 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 8 17 52 0 4 117 5 0 129 8 1 3 1 1 Other Torts...... 120 8 0 0 0 80 0 2 0 0 82 4 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 20 0 0 39 0 0 45 0 1 0 1 0 Land Takings... 41 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 24 9 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 5 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 All Others...... 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 TOTALS...... 595 77 0 1 0 369 0 33 0 6 408 35 5 0 36 5 34 2 1 0 0 0 0 557 82 91 308 2 40 471 38 0 557 82 13 15 8 3 0 55* 0 191 146 104 233 1 B r is t o l 276 96 1 1 2 85 0 57 0 7 149 12 7 1 6 3 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 276 102 3 100 3 36 256 66 1 276 102 1 0 0 0 Motor Torts__ 2277 165 21 1 11 538 0 335 0 52 925 57 14 0 25 3 29 5 9 0 0 0 0 2326 154 0 893 0 43 2087 115 0 2,326 154 2 0 3 0 Other Torts...... 616 38 7 0 3 160 0 60 0 9 229 14 4 0 9 1 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 650 44 2 164 0 16 618 37 0 650 44 1 0 0 0 4,S Land Takings... 169 4 0 0 0 55 0 4 0 0 55 22 9 0 22 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 146 6 0 72 0 1 113 4 0 146 6 0 0 0 0 All Others...... 6 56 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 1 53 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 8 86 0 2 0 28 9 33 0 8 86 0 0 0 0 TOTALS...... 3,344 359 29 2 16 886 0 456 0 69 1,411 105 37 1 62 7 35 18 19 0 0 0 0 3,406 392 5 1,231 3 124 3,083 255 1 3,406 392 4 0 3 0 0 217 0 475 439 457 457 14 D u k e s 8 17 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 0 4 0 5 11 14 0 11 14 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 a Motor Torts__ 11 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 6 0 1 13 0 0 13 0 Other Torts...... 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 Land Takings... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 All Others...... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Q 0 0 0 0 TOTALS...... 27 17 0 0 0 18 0 2 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 14 0 10 0 7 33 14 0 33 14 4 5 0 0 0 9 0 20 18 6 32 C 3>- Essex Contracts...... 587 211 10 2 3 333 0 98 0 9 440 7 7 0 4 0 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 657 213 14 280 4 85 290 42 1 657 213 9 45 20 38 Motor Torts.... 2,442 63 85 1 20 1,173 0 ' 723 0 70 1,966 115 8 0 37 4 34 3 0 0 0 0 0 2,985 65 152 1,335 0 40 1,580 12 9 2,985 65 45 16 31 8 Other Torts...... 703 37 15 0 9 321 0 115 0 2 438 56 5 0 10 6 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 855 45 50 210 1 41 452 15 0 855 45 9 6 11 4 Land Takings.. . 253 3 0 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 107 21 2 0 14 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 281 2 0 78 0 2 237 0 0 281 2 4 2 0 0 All Others...... 3 75 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 76 0 47 0 1 0 5 0 3 76 1 18 0 10 TOTALS...... 3,988 389 110 3 32 1,983 0 936 0 81 3,000 199 22 0 65 10 55 8 4 0 0 0 0 4,781 401 216 1,950 5 169 2,559 74 10 4,781 401 68 87 62 60 8 486 10 899 558 560 897 52 F r a n k l in Contracts...... 20 13 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 3 17 0 2 13 7 0 13 8 1 0 3 1 Motor Torts.... 197 3 0 0 0 72 0 10 0 2 84 12 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 0 0 129 0 0 139 0 0 154 0 13 0 12 0 Other Torts...... 38 0 1 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 1 13 0 1 34 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 Land Takings... 48 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 18 0 0 33 0 0 36 0 3 0 10 0 If: All Others...... 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 yf TOTALS...... 303 19 1 0 0 99 0 13 0 2 114 15 0 0 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 244 10 4 178 0 3 220 7 0 241 10 18 0 26 1 0 36* 0 37 15 13 4C C Ha m p d e n Contracts...... 234 67 34 5 0 214 0 52 0 0 266 18 10 0 10 9 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 272 57 0 224 0 53 272 57 0 272 57 3 1 3 2 Motor Torts.... 1,977 110 217 6 0 1,346 0 479 0 0 1,825 99 7 0 70 6 63 6 1 0 0 0 0 1,833 59 0 2,144 0 99 1,833 59 0 1,833 59 55 1 17 2 Other Torts...... 464 34 27 0 0 282 0 68 0 0 350 36 0 0 16 15 11 2 3 0 0 0 0 394 11 0 446 0 24 394 11 0 394 11 5 0 2 3 Land Takings.. . 279 5 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 72 46 5 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 3 0 198 0 22 132 3 0 132 3 1 0 1 0 18 87 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 66 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 60 0 43 0 59 9 60 0 9 60 0 1 0 0 f TOTALS.... 2,972 303 278 11 0 1,980 0 599 0 0 2,579 199 25 0 136 30 78 17 8 0 0 0 0 2,640 190 0 3,056 0 257 2,640 190 0 2,640 190 64 3 23 7 45 327 72 351 247 340 258 19 H a m p s h i r e 37 1C 2 0 0 17 o 4 0 0 21 3 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 9 2 35 0 4 19 5 0 20 9 0 0 0 0 Motor Torts---- 281 2 6 0 0 93 c 31 0 3 127 11 0 0 u 2 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 201 2 0 216 0 3 189 0 0 195 2 0 0 0 0 Other Torts...... 67 4 3 0 0 23 c 2 0 1 26 4 0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 3 2 46 0 2 55 0 0 49 3 0 0 0 0 Land Takings.. . 51 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 28 0 0 30 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 TOTALS...... 436 17 11 0 0 148 0 37 0 4 189 30 1 0 32 5 13 1 0 0 0 1 0 307 18 4 325 0 9 293 8 0 297 18 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 35 26 59 0 M i d d l e s e x 908 547 13 11 4 666 0 202 0 27 895 24 5 o 15 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 1183 688 16 447 9 246 949 454 5 1,183 688 31 82 32 78 Motor Torts.... 7,222 740 107 18 46 3,392 0 1,953 0 220 5,565 161 3 0 114 13 105 3 0 0 0 0 0 8,487 945 18 4,533 2 318 7,231 720 72 8,487 945 187 63 112 44 Other Torts...... 1,970 190 22 4 8 977 0 259 0 100 1,336 73 3 0 35 12 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 1,429 289 1 891 0 86 2,034 154 0 1,429 289 40 26 21 20 Land Takings.. . 384 23 0 0 0 144 0 49 0 5 198 38 11 0 38 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 436 21 1 111 0 11 362 12 0 436 21 16 1 6 1 17 255 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 132 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 29 263 0 22 0 127 38 23 0 29 263 2 26 1 26 TOTALS...... 10501 1,755 142 33 58 5,311 0 2,463 0 352 8,126 296 25 0 202 29 136 23 2 0 0 0 0 11564 2,206 36 6,010 11 788 10,614 1,363 77 11,564 2,206 276 198 172 169 71 1,242 146 1,983 974 893 2,064 129 N a n t u c k e t Contracts...... 3 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Motor Torts.... 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Other Torts...... 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Takings.. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Others...... 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 TOTALS...... 12 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 1 1 8 7 4 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 2 N o r f o l k 541 287 3 2 1 274 0 150 0 0 424 8 7 0 4 0 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 529 286 5 296 0 131 440 200 0 529 286 37 49 21 32 Motor Torts---- 2809 226 15 2 10 1,213 0 628 0 80 1,921 94 4 0 75 5 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 2,808 241 1 1794 0 147 2,430 183 0 2,808 241 97 25 45 12 Other Torts...... 681 71 2 2 3 370 0 115 0 0 485 24 3 0 20 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 728 79 1 399 0 41 636 51 0 728 79 33 6 16 6 Land Takings.. . 186 5 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 76 7 1 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 207 5 0 58 0 0 203 5 0 207 5 9 0 6 0 All Others...... 28 186 1 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 127 2 5 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 21 208 0 6 0 103 20 130 0 21 208 0 37 1 29 15 TOTALS...... 4,245 775 21 6 14 2,060 0 893 0 80 3,033 135 20 0 108 6 21 13 7 0 0 0 0 4,293 819 7 2,553 0 422 3,729 569 0 4,293 819 176 117 89 79 2 336 4 963 362 385 940 P l y m o u t h 252 145 2 0 0 109 0 54 0 0 163 4 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 305 143 5 60 0 58 292 67 9 306 143 10 30 0 23 Motor Torts.... 1443 102 21 0 28 497 0 431 0 1 929 31 5 1 16 1 28 2 3 0 0 15 3 1638 162 3 646 0 42 1551 59 0 1653 165 21 13 3 8 Other Torts...... 364 35 10 1 11 127 0 75 0 0 202 9 1 1 3 4 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 430 36 0 131 0 20 425 21 0 432 36 10 3 1 4 Land Takings.. . 101 4 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 41 3 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 5 0 39 0 2 110 4 0 111 5 6 0 1 1 All Others...... 7 89 0 0 0 265 0 2 0 0 267 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 95 0 0 0 262 2 126 3 3 95 0 5 0 3 1181 36 TOTALS...... 2,167 375 33 1 39 1039 0 562 0 1 1,602 48 8 2 32 5 33 3 5 0 0 18 3 2,487 441 8 876 0 384 2,380 277 12 2,505 444 47 51 5 39 0 186 0 964 475 25S S u f f o l k 1,578 952 20 11 36 739 0 376 0 17 1,132 38 43 1 26 3 10 31 5 0 0 304 390 1,513 928 51 893 34 442 1209 538 0 1,513 928 34 140 33 136 Motor Torts.... 8,010 1110 144 98 124 3,260 0 2,433 0 215 5,908 290 27 0 169 14 145 17 12 0 0 1078 429 7,399 1095 114 6,078 7 368 6,321 6 6 6 0 7,399 1095 22 0 22 0 176 167 Other Torts...... 3,301 248 41 23 62 1,359 0 392 0 12 1,763 95 18 0 47 16 30 8 8 0 0 479 118 3,257 284 16 1,938 2 123 2,778 166 0 3,257 284 69 58 62 49 Land Takings... 383 6 0 0 0 326 0 0 0 0 326 1 4 0 80 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 1 532 9 1 178 0 33 492 8 0 532 9 21 1 15 1 All Others...... 53 621 0 0 0 354 0 16 0 16 386 79 145 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 433 41 685 1 26 8 294 33 252 0 41 685 2 99 1 77 3,632 1,544 1,423 3,753 301 TOTALS...... 13,325 2,937 205 132 2 2 2 6,038 0 3,217 0 260 9,515 503 237 1 323 33 185 97 25 0 0 1,909 1371 12,742 3,001 183 9,109 51 1,250 10,833 1,630 0 12,742 3,001 346 518 287 430 93 1,930 194 W o r c e s t e r Contracts...... 271 109 8 1 5 265 0 43 0 7 315 10 7 1 4 1 3 6 1 0 0 0 C 205 189 12 237 11 68 205 49 1 205 189 13 4 1 1 Motor Torts.... 2,176 117 216 23 50 2,814 0 169 0 40 3,023 134 21 0 90 4 51 16 6 0 0 0 0 1,906 392 17 3,121 1 165 1906 30 65 1,906 392 14 1 5 0 Other Torts...... 400 37 40 4 5 565 0 36 0 3 604 19 2 0 7 3 11 0 2 0 0 0 c 438 78 2 521 0 31 438 10 17 438 78 4 2 1 0 Land Takings... 136 3 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 101 32 2 0 28 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 166 16 0 78 0 6 166 12 1 166 16 1 0 0 0 All Others...... 5 43 0 0 0 55 0 5 0 3 63 4 5 0 0 2 2 19 23 0 0 0 0 2 52 0 4 0 37 2 34 0 2 52 0 3 0 0 73 413 597 576 441 35 TOTALS...... 2,988 309 264 28 60 3,800 0 253 0 53 4,106 199 37 1 129 10 68 43 32 0 0 0 0 2,717 727 31 3,961 12 307 2,717 135 84 2,717 727 32 10 7 1 30 66S 5,222 0725 620 8,429 1,052 1015 684 803 249 5614 499 10336 5,603 G r a n d T o t a l s 45,256 7,484 1094 217 441 23,943 4 9,522 0 912 34,381 1,794 421 5 1,145 143 672 229 104 0 0 1,928 1374 46,133 8,426 587 29,783 85 3,846 39887 4,617 184 46,141 52,740 1752 88,873 34381 34,301 54,570 43 44 1 45 1 46 | 20 | 22 | 24 ! 26 I 32 1 33 1 34 | 35 | 36 38 39 40 42 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 | 5 ¡617 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 l i l 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16l i l 1 18 1 19 1 21 | 23 I 25 | 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 31 L2Z_ L il— P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 69 Retransfers ...... 1,650 1,752 Total entries ...... 33,558 34,381 87,263 88,873 less disposed of -—34,526 —34,301 On hand—end of year .... 52,737 54,572 II. Equity 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Trials during year by Superior Court justices ...... 688 620 On hand—start of year .. 9,918 10,336 Entries ...... 5,501 5,603 15,419 15,939 less disposed of ...... —5,066 -—5,222 On hand—end of year .... 10,353 10,717 SUPERIOR COURT A summary of criminal statistics for 1968 and 1969 follows: SUPERIOR COURT Criminal Statistics 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Trials during year by Superior Court justices ...... 2,833 2,116 Trials during year by District Court justices ...... 1,083 805 Days during which a Superior Court justice sat for trials, dispositions or redispositions ...... 2,887 3,270 Days during which a District Court justice sat in Superior Court ...... 657 662 SUPERIOR COURT The next table is a five year comparison of criminal business and the attached charts give the detailed civil and criminal statistics. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL STATISTICS 1965-1969 1 9 6 5 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 On hand at first of year .. 6,187* 7,708* 10,098 11,774 13,667 Indictments returned .... 9,546 9,786 9,922 11,524 13,371 Appeal cases entered .... 7,574 9,037 9,956 11,371 13,137 Actions on bail bonds .. 146 37 81 77 76 Disposed brt. forward .. 1,333 1,394 1,213 1,305 1,176 Indictments waived .... 752 347 375 458 575 28,342 Complaints after waiver 43 19,394 45 20,646 9 21,556 0 24,735 7 42,009 Total ...... 25,581 28,354 31,654 36,509 Appeals withdrawn before sitting ...... 492 560 568 508 462 Appeals withdrawn after next sitting ..... 528 602 81 1 889 1,073 Appeals withdrawn during sitting ...... 440 574 557 746 617 -25,855 Disposed of ...... 16,371 —17,831 16,520 —18,256 17,944 — 19,880 22,842 —24,985 23,703 - On hand at end of year . 7,750 10,098 11,774 11,524 16,154 * (Corrected figures.) REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT CRIMINAL BUSINESS STATISTICS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1969 a 3 o X! + -» .o G d O ct a> < /) P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 71 The appellate division for the review of sentences under G. L. c. 278, §§ 28A-28D, sat 25 days in the year ending June 30, 1969. Appeals pending June 30, 1968 ...... 233 Appeals filed ...... 380 Total ...... 613 Sentences reduced ...... 26 Sentences increased ...... 11 Appeals dismissed ...... 170 Appeals withdrawn ...... 264 Appeals became moot...... 3 Total ...... 474 Appeals pending June 30, 1969 139 Land Court The four year comparative statistics show a further reduction in new cases and an increase in dispositions. In the absence of an inven tory of pending cases it is not possible to determine the size and character of the back log. LAND COURT COMPARATIVE OF FOUR YEARS—JULY 1, 1965 to JUNE 30, 1969 7 /1 /6 5 7 /1 /6 6 7/1/67 7/1/68 to to to to 6 /3 0 /6 6 6 /3 0 /6 7 6 /3 0 /6 8 6 /3 0 /6 9 Land Registration ...... 686 539 486 411 Land Confirmation ...... 7 18 41 34 Land Registration, Subsequent ...... 1,208 1,145 1,209 EOT O URM JDCA CUT .. 166 P.D. 1,317 COURT JUDICIAL SUPREME TO REPORT Tax Lien ...... 856 755 672 559 Equity ...... 3,069 2,831 2,733 2,562 Miscellaneous ...... 314 346 — Total Cases Entered ...... 6,140 5,634 5,141 4,883 Decree Plans Made ...... 505 460 460 370 Subdivision Plans Made ...... 940 762 642 583 Total Plans Made ...... 1,445 1,222 1,102 953 Total Appropriation ...... $ 490,905.00 $ 567,337.00 $ 594,342.00 $ 594,342.00 Fees Sent to State Treasurer ...... 93,811.59 75,729.16 87,113.38 87,935.55 Income from Assurance Fund—Applicable to Expenses ...... 15,408.42 11,185.16 9,895.20 11,448.09 Total Expenditures ...... 453,624.97 528,932.37 583,627.09 590,753.55 Net Cost to Commonwealth ...... 344,404.96 442,018.05 486,618.51 491,369.91 Claims Paid From Assurance Fund During Year ...... None 200,000.00* None 500.00 Assurance Fund (Close of Fiscal Year) ...... 459,611.49 266,933.68 275,722.10 283,990.69 Assessed Value of Land on Petitions in Registration and Con- $6,705,681.64 $7,288,623.16 $9,697,516.50 $12,425,498.86 ÎCREE OR JUDGMENT BEFORE HEARING Land Registration ...... 418 420 450 533 Land Confirmation ...... 15 22 22 20 Land Registration, Subsequent 1,208 1,145 1,209 1,317 Tax Lien ...... 488 533 622 714 Equity and Miscellaneous ...... 2,179 2,575 2,809 2,986 Total Cases Disposed of ... 4,308 4,695 5,112 5,570 1966. P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 73 P r o ba te C o u r t s The total of original entries, including divorce, continued to rise, about 8.4%, from 110,920 in 1967 to 120,216 in 1968. The total of divorce original entries increased about 9%, from 14,241 in 1968 to 15,546 in 1969. Among the five counties showing the largest number of entries, including divorce, Essex county became fourth in rank. Original entries (including divorce) for all counties, with divorce libels in ( ) 1967 to 1968 1967 1968 + or — Barnstable .. 2,374 2,390 + 16 ( 367) ( 307) (— 60) Berkshire 2,890 3,317 + 427 ( 418) ( 372) (— 46) Bristol .... 6,857 6.487 — 370 ( 1,092) ( 1,303) (+ 211) Dukes .... 274 237 — 37 ( 33) ( 35) (+ 2) Essex ...... 11,320 12,006 + 686 ( L238) ( 1,416) (+ 178) Franklin ... 1.306 1,339 + 33 ( 173) ( 189) (+ 16) Hampden . . 8,783 8,159 — 624 ( 1,562) ( 1,618) (+ 56) Hampshire 1,841 3,873 +2,032 ( 241) ( 268) (+ 27) Middlesex 25,488 31,937 +6,449 ( 3,067) ( 3,430) (+ 363) Nantucket 157 166 + 9 ( 20) ( 18) ( - 2) Norfolk .... 13,788 12,512 -1,276 ( 1,250) ( 1,250) — Plymouth 6,948 7,734 + 786 ( 949) ( 1,109) (+ 160) Suffolk ..... 17,061 18,451 + 1,390 ( 1,953) ( 2,213) (+ 260) Worcester 11,833 11,608 — 225 ( 1,878) ( 2,018) (+ 140) Totals 110,920 120,216 + 9,296 (14,241) (15,546) ( + 1,305) The complete table appears at page 76. 74 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 Five Counties with largest number of original entries (including divorce) 1 9 6 7 19 6 8 Middlesex ...... 25,488 Middlesex ...... 31,937 Suffolk ...... 17,061 Suffolk ...... 18,451 Norfolk ...... 13,788 Norfolk ...... 12,512 Worcester ...... 11,833 Essex ...... 12,006 Essex ...... 11,320 Worcester ...... 11,608 76 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT pjy 1(t EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORTS OF THE REGISIE ga u e .a pq m « Original entries (including divorce) ...... 2,390 3,317 6,487 Administration allowed ...... 214 399 851 Wills allowed ...... 352 483 728 Guardianship (minor) ...... 31 61 108 Guardianship (mentally ill) ...... 6 8 32 Conservators Decrees ...... 25 46 73 Accounts & Distribution Decrees ...... 533 790 771 Trustees Decrees ...... 33 49 68 Equity Decrees ...... 16 18 17 Restraining Orders, etc. Decrees ...... 8 0 0 Pro Confesso Decrees ...... 2 0 (I Partitions ...... 20 5 16 Real Estate Sales ...... 89 152 443 Separate Support ...... 8 16 56 Contempts and Modifications ...... 4 17 3 Petitions dismissed ...... 36 17 381 Desertion and Living Apart (allowed) ...... 1 4 1 Custody — Minors (allowed) ...... 6 6 6 Divorce: Original entries ...... 307 372 1,303 Decrees nisi ...... 224 396 940 Decrees dismissed ...... 27 41 94 Other Decrees & Orders (including modifications and contempts, etc.) ...... 160 126 344 Dismissed under Rule 48 ...... 47 55 118 Adoptions ...... 66 99 240 Commitments: Mentally 111 & Feeble Minded ...... 0 0 0 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 77 OF PROBATE FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1968 Middlesex Hampden Hampshire Nantucket Norfolk Essex Franklin Suffolk Plymouth Worcester Totals 12,006 1,339 8,159 3,873 31,937 166 12,512 7,734 18,451 11,608 120,216 1,154 150 704 169 2,474 20 713 505 1,699 1,132 10,205 1,369 186 786 244 3,375 28 1,318 622 1,303 1,761 12,601 197 22 147 46 274 0 163 87 247 155 1,538 62 7 38 5 137 1 38 55 111 41 541 185 33 142 33 515 0 188 88 293 151 1,772 2,126 389 1,859 449 10,019 36 3,022 973 3,313 2,113 26,393 178 15 57 17 307 1 225 65 166 111 1,292 84 10 71 12 183 0 72 23 132 53 691 0 3 0 19 45 0 48 0 25 30 178 29 2 31 8 130 0 7 8 14 0 231 30 1 2 0 46 1 16 7 53 23 220 648 74 327 98 1,021 2 444 289 462 598 4,647 59 3 53 1 1,630 2 101 24 427 179 2,559 92 5 8 2 830 1 103 33 178 154 1,430 323 1 12 9 37 0 301 316 342 349 2,130 17 0 4 4 9 0 0 0 5 0 45 31 7 8 2 24 0 25 38 92 118 363 1,416 189 1,618 268 3,430 18 1,250 1,109 2,213 2,018 15,546 945 144 1,201 191 2,173 13 990 716 1,353 1,516 10,817 68 39 151 27 299 5 114 89 131 208 1,295 535 92 734 295 2,790 8 1,286 1,464 2,478 1,327 11,651 147 19 247 36 418 5 151 125 355 300 2,027 433 58 398 59 1,217 5 506 312 723 362 4,478 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 467 0 471 78 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.D. 166 D istrict Courts The number of civil writs entered in the District Courts, exclu sive of remand cases, increased from 93,827 in 1968 to 94,242 in 1969. In 1968 there were 12,090 civil cases tried; in 1969, 12,194. The statistics on removals to and transfers from the Superior Court show increases in removals and in transfer cases tried, while transfers and retransfers declined. 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 + or — Removals ...... 7,238 7,838 + 600 Transfers ...... 12,234 10,986 —1,248 Transfers tried ...... 3,997 4,324 + 327 Retransfers ...... 1,588 1,454 — 134 Criminal cases begun continued their steady increase. 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 + o r — Criminal cases begun ...... 5 1 4 ,8 4 0 574,400 +59,560 Major categories: Drunkenness ...... 5 5 .5 1 4 5 6 ,6 2 1 + U 0 7 Automobile ...... 322,273 320,111 — 2 ,1 6 2 Operating under influence .. 6 ,3 1 8 7 ,2 9 3 + 9 7 5 Narcotics ...... 4 ,0 5 7 8 ,0 8 0 + 4 ,0 2 3 Other comparisons follow: 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 + or — Eviction cases entered ...... 14,032 14,193 + 161 Eviction cases tried ...... 3 ,0 6 5 3 ,8 2 9 + 7 6 4 Poor debtor cases ...... 31,605 29,158 — 2 ,4 4 7 Small claims cases ...... 8 7 ,6 1 9 8 7 ,5 6 9 — 5 0 Juvenile cases ...... 16,778 19,183 + 2 , 4 0 5 Reciprocal support cases ...... 2 ,3 1 5 2 ,1 6 6 — 1 4 9 Reciprocal support collections .. $3,145,719 $3,327,506 + $ 1 8 1 ,7 8 7 Boston M unicipal Court The following civil and criminal statistics for two years are supplied in tabular form. CIVIL 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Actions entered: Contract ...... 18,555 17,499 Tort ...... 5,154 5,840 Contract or tort ...... 449 408 All others ...... 899 1,011 Total actions entered 25,057 24,758 Actions removed to Superior Court: Contract ...... 242 307 STATISTICS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1969 AS REPORTED BY THE CLERKS OF SAID COURTS Compiled by llie Chief Justice o f the District Courts 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 • 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, Remand or Transfer Cases G.L.C. 273A Acts 1958, C. 369 DISTRICT COURTS arranged in accordance with 1965 CENSUS Total Civil W rits Entered Trials Less Summary Process Summary(Included Process Enteredin Column 1) Removals to Summary Process Tried Superior Court Reported to Appellate Divisions Reported to Supreme Judicial Court Small Claims Supplementary Process Criminal Cases Begun Criminal Appeals Harmful Drugs, etc. Narcotics— Automobile Cases Operating Under Influence Gaming and/or Lottery Cases of Intoxicating Liquor Juvenile Cases Neglected Children Drunkenness Parking Tickets R etu rn e d C o m m itm e n ts o f M en ta lly III Cases Initiated Cases Receivedfrom Other States Amount of Money C o lle c te d Cases Received Retransferred to Su T rie d perior Court after Trial Dispositions: Agreements,Dismissals, Settlements, etc. P e n d in g Trials, Defaults, Non-Suits, •| Central W orcester ...... 5 ,0 8 4 433 538 142 130 2 0 1,605 4,131 55,395 600 321 4,882 2 1 ,3 9 4 255 19 1,277 75 1 14,083 595 12 Springfield ...... 5 ,7 8 4 1,234 518 202 538 9 46 41 145,197.1 1 1.861 71 1 221 1,802 2 ,7 5 2 1 2,326 6,256 43 ,2 4 2 372 527 4 ,1 3 4 33 ,4 5 2 340 53 1.072 59 1 1} East Norfolk, Quincy ...... 5,3 6 4 602 273 84 351 60,674 258 123 95 2 0 7 ,3 3 0 .2 6 432 139 61 403 260 0 0 1,145 2,287 1 1,949 4 1 4 253 2 ,1 2 4 6,001 35 4 10 647 2 4 1st East, Middlesex, Malden 5,027 4 9,495 17 32 19 1 20,372.16 525 1 12 65 445 588 378 265 594 3 1 1.187 4,388 17,437 317 197 990 277 3 ;5 3rd East. Middlesex, Cambridge 6.452 153 5 491 10 61,313 70 15 20 105 ,8 0 9 .2 6 560 4,8 / 3 567 352 91 375 6 0 698 1.612 34,603 4 90 405 52 700 289 4 350 2,377 9,1 5 4 142 6 508 0 215 ,4 1 6 95 33 14 16 Lowell ...... 3.883 55 1 593 66 226 0 0 745 1 17,444.08 385 127 70 410 150 5 7.186 1 1.021 325 33 1,958 4 .7 0 4 174 6 723 17 18,237 44 " Dorchester ...... 6.4 3 9 1,043 2.048 295 1,255 2 31 43 1 03,635.46 311 151 26 389. 349 6 0 1,756 1,877 22 ,2 6 6 371 174 2,188 15,525 1 10 59 92 6 33 5 Southern Essex. Lynn ...... 2,761 236 520 125 52,370 17 40 54 8 2 ,6 5 1 .9 8 981 200 92 509 1,225 7 159 2 0 628 1,762 9,435 324 343 2,028 5,075 192 37 :9 3rd Bristol, New Bedford .... 2 ,5 4 8 673 4 29,755 1 15 23 6 0 ,3 1 7 .3 8 62 46 263 348 149 263 4 0 327 3,466 1 1,564 155 507 1,487 17 92 696 8 10 West Roxbury ...... 5,781 245 64 780 2 12,324 67 36 30 9 3 ,7 5 0 .4 7 1,297 155 695 255 79 3 0 847 1.046 10,272 330 145 34 10 133 387 9 138 1,038 7,601 74 22 519 3 2 7,000 0 37 26 11 4th East, Middlesex. W oburn 2 ,3 8 0 280 100 27 213 3 0 1,255 2,165 7 9 ,8 5 7 .1 8 95 32 15 95 40 10 7,418 291 66 962 5,022 135 8 323 3 3,132 18 11 12 Lawrence ...... 1,957 352 251 69 221 2 2 17 8 5 ,4 8 4 .3 2 228 76 21 225 45 11 279 1,365 6,615 212 327 1,527 3,742 177 5 346 18 2 1,976 13 Northern Norfolk, Dedham 1,971 131 76 17 1 12 16 15 16 5 3 ,2 3 3 .3 5 90 47 12 123 62 12 1 0 689 998 5.363 295 78 426 3.437 87 12 238 14 Second Bristol. Fall River .... 218 8 10.533 388 10 10 6 5 ,1 4 6 .9 0 195 78 44 1,609 280 154 87 0 0 215 ■2,427 2 7 ,0 3 2 595 192 1,590 19,232 194 79 13 15 First Essex, Salem ...... 126 23 538 11 57,887 28 16 14 6 1 ,3 8 2 .6 3 91 1,950 498 1 18 93 1 18 0 0 385 1,015 5,437 127 194 992 33 9 85 241 14 ¡6 Brockton ...... 2,861 170 8 182 19 13,129 150 30 6 6 9 ,7 2 5 .9 7 2 ,1 8 0 192 237 78 278 1 0 573 1.674 8.583 85 25 9 80 147 15 277 70 1,910 4,4 3 7 215 16 421 22 13,318 107 27 11 II 2nd East. Middlesex. W altham 2 ,4 5 0 239 178 58 151 0 0 451 1,801 9 6 ,0 2 8 .3 5 135 31 19 1 18 4 10 16 9,1 17 263 1 19 579 3 ,9 3 0 65 4 208 11 23,090 1! 1st So. Middlesex, Framingham 1,630 189 128 58 127 472 9 13 4 7 ,2 4 6 .8 6 179 45 37 230 45 17 2 0 462 1.378 7,712 189 152 359 5,182 104 4 188 1 1 15 2nd Plymouth, Hingham ~ ...... 1,697 267 122 48 3,880 0 7 20 8 0 ,3 5 1 .3 2 196 89 26 184 73 18 174 2 0 482 1.205 12,228 43 9 236 743 9,052 339 0 10 Hampshire, N ortham pton 640 431 5 4,171 59 18 12 67,663.25 149 97 19 77 41 19 15 0 0 102 1,315 8,990 88 188 638 184 72 19 11 Newton ...... 6,738 185 52 26 4 2 23,723 183 ■ 10 16 35,2 6 9 .8 3 1,728 314 63 21 155 1 0 370 1,985 4 .1 0 4 84 45 16 62 98 20 97 61 293 2,931 29 15 187 0 39,437 14 12 12 ' 2 Somerville ...... 2,4 7 2 207 310 166 283 0 0 687 1,224 4 7 ,0 7 8 .2 7 24 0 88 44 251 56 21 6 ,1 8 4 7 24 1,370 3,876 32 17 197 80 34,75 1 24 ,13 Central Middlesex, Concord 707 69 47 18 41 0 0 33 62 5 7 ,9 4 7 .7 9 319 198 39 487 329 22 234 682 10,047 37 67 455 8,032 180 I 257 0 14 Western Norfolk, W rentham 908 119 81 5,749 7 12 14 4 6 ,8 5 0 .3 3 71 44 14 105 14 23 47 50 0 0 490 1,172 4,695 56 56 492 3,131 112 7 15 Roxbury ...... 3,441 501 4 0 227 26 19 3 9 ,1 9 1 .8 0 94 53 8 148 2,393 20 4 212 3 0 1,095 1,050 33.818 4 20 612 1,968 68 62 24 4 ,8 8 0 91 48 0 0 235,951 17 53 65 2 4 1 ,7 8 2 .3 4 16 First Bristol, Taunton ...... 90 4 1 10 95 40 49 1 0 183 1.079 4,305 183 73 27 226 33 25 311 47 31 1 2,730 1 12 5 214 1 1,417 159 27 ¡7 Central Berkshire, Pittsfield 872 72 100 57 18 0 0 134 20 50,3 0 2 .9 5 56 17 1 1 70 35 26 1,281 8,537 27 26 657 7,497 133 9 120 23 49,798 II Chelsea ...... 1,471 162 245 79 168 3 7 20 3 8 ,7 0 7 .5 0 1 19 39 21 106 31 27 0 0 654 933 1 1.898 352 180 1,634 6,930 81 30 848 24 11 East Boston ...... 1,107 146 26 6 13,865 10 8 6 2 7 ,9 3 5 .0 0 168 49 13 141 67 195 1 0 472 695 17,833 190 150 580 16.128 27 4 28 Fourth Bristol, Attleboro 13 27 175 1 1 61,184 5 6 5 3 7 ,4 2 3 .1 9 153 6 90 60 63 9 60 1 0 157 1,032 5.081 77 61 38 29 135 61 29 212 2,203 125 2 232 5 4,101 5 10 17. 1st So. Worcester, Webster 387 22 59 43 19 0 0 336 1,058 31,655.41 4 4 6 5 39 25 30 5,433 69 20 5 19 3,921 94 20 1 1 1 1 674 4 12 Chicopee ...... 333 67 52 33 53 2 0 12 13 4 0 ,9 2 6 .8 2 159 47 33 195 50 31 334 908 2,896 46 93 485 1,607 148 1 1 225 11 I Central No. Essex, Haverhill 1.001 2,645 4 18 22 2 0 ,2 4 6 .0 0 49 108 16 506 94 40 59 1 0 910 912 3.969 173 328 707 108 225 32 4 Brighton ...... 2 ,0 9 4 1 12 21 202 0 2,700 16 11 12 4 2 ,2 2 9 .3 9 1,501 186 648 132 105 0 0 433 963 12,737 219 64 51 10 80 9 33 229 818 10,678 66 23 1 19 i 66,855 0 7 14 5 Brookline ...... 1,424 23 0 195 42 97 4 0 276 544 4 1 ,1 5 4 .0 4 85 26 17 90 34 34 8,768 49 39 186 720 3 0 1 17 2 99,519 3 5 6 Fitchburg ...... 1.373 51 73 37 25 0 1 386 11 3 1 ,2 2 2 .9 9 199 55 27 171 79 35 1,443 3.041 35 72 592 1,587 121 2 353 37 14,269 Holyoke ...... 507 70 61 16 56 0 0 0 15 16 3 9 ,6 9 1 .9 6 125 46 17 136 182 36 129 1,068 3,350 89 42 768 1,224 88 13 220 Iii Peabody ...... 94 4 117 15 24,361 0 23 13 3 9 ,8 4 9 .9 5 300 175 62 277 1 16 51 13 184 0 0 334 584 3,615 67 52 392 2,1 4 2 37 I * Southern Norfolk. Stoughton 52 4 147 2 6,802 10 5 4 2 3 ,7 1 6 .9 4 78 22 700 107 33 14 66 1 0 256 759 3,298 174 16 44 48 38 24 253 2,2 8 4 88 8 275 0 986 0 6 ■ 7 p Franklin, Greenfield ...... 47 7 43 . 26 12 15 0 0 593 1,151 21,326.03 106 24 4 106 6 39 4,767 1 10 I 11 459 3,2 3 0 1 13 0 212 0 557 1 [¡I 1st Barnstable, Barnstable 1,270 50 80 16 46 1 0 341 16 17 3 2 ,7 6 3 .0 7 24 3 2 24 15 40 2.144 9 .4 8 4 129 283 1.920 4,6 0 4 184 0 367 0 1-1 1st Northern Worcester, Gardner 417 4 0 . 21 6 3,284 21 27 21 7 7 ,3 4 1 .4 3 44 17 10 58 15 41 5 0 0 389 757 2,609 1 14 32 588 1,355 99 1 3 3rd Plymouth, Plymouth ...... 822 132 7 7,690 353 16 7 3 2 ,1 3 0 .6 4 28 12 6 135 62 26 36 1 0 256 1.063 3,960 134 42 365 31 37 42 4 South Boston ...... 2,543 144 0 469 5 2,279 29 4 6 2 2 ,6 1 9 .0 5 21 10 82 4 13 577 102 56 0 0 362 413 10.499 49 13 2 29 10 43 1,714 7,818 60 17 239 0 33,180 3 4 11 2 2 ,3 8 7 .1 6 5 Western Hampden, Westfield 298 27 27 25 30 2 0 84 919 4 ,2 0 2 40 9 2 39 51 44 33 32 256 2,759 46 22 198 5 3,707 0 13 19 4 Marlboro ...... 539 68 50 14 25 0 0 136 1,060 3 4 ,4 1 9 .9 8 513 221 92 604 213 2,907 82 44 371 1,834 59 0 83 10 5,73 1 12 : 1st Northern Middlesex, Ayer 339 40 21 3 23 0 0 524 1 1 6 4 9 ,3 6 1 .6 0 71 43 5 79 37 1.131 5,571 73 30 371 3,982 169 0 183 10 291 Plymouth, Wareham ...... 417 9 40 10 31 0 0 42 28 12 4 5 ,2 0 5 .4 0 39 1 1 1 21 36 163 836 4.913 140 23 292 3,298 135 0 237 ) 1st East. W orcester, W estboro 222 68 19 1 78 21 8 4 8 ,6 2 1 .3 8 23 19 1 44 7 7 0 0 79 303 5,001 145 27 176 4 ,6 0 9 18 ) Eastern Hampden. Palmer 56 2 227 16 262 751 7 1 1 1,354.71 81 !4 25 • 6 !2 4 0 84 802 2,743 A 53 3 62 67 37 39 186 2 .1 0 6 85 5 124 \ j 1 Eastern Essex, Gloucester 359 33 0 10 12 16 13,680.78 286 68 32 226 101 53 25 18 3 0 98 574 3,700 46 85 368 672 2nd East. Worcester, Clinton 53 0 233 0 2 0,339 8 6 6 2 0 ,6 4 6 .9 2 18 11 2 29 28 22 9 5 0 0 196 250 3,160 76 21 4 19 12 51 ! N a tic k ...... 25 4 2 ,3 3 0 67 0 115 12 1,336 20 18 5 2 8 ,8 2 2 .8 9 45 2 1 10 27 21 28 0 0 284 407 1,580 59 13 3 63 39 52 38 14 121 696 29 0 91 4 823 0 1 4 2nd South. Worcester, Uxbridge 301 136 26 21 7 2 0 74 3 9 ,7 5 4 .0 0 39 20 6 47 10 53 234 1,099 56 34 76 510 26 1 61 4 > L e o m in ste r ...... 309 38 43 24 6 0 4 7 17,278.78 41 14 5 30 21 9 0 0 308 691 1,837 59 61 219 1,027 3 3rd South. Worcester, Milford 36 0 98 3 2,381 5 10 3 2 3 ,6 5 9 .5 8 55 32 7 473 84 22 1 1 30 0 0 88 356 919 58 75 94 63 128 407 22 14 62 6 2,571 0 8 4 19,505.75 ’ 2nd Barnstable, Provincetown 39 6 145 36 28 14 0 0 168 1.058 5,047 60 40 7 64 6 195 319 535 2,4 5 6 93 0 52 0 12,185 1 15 5 3 West. Worcester, E. Brookfield 105 6 13 3 2 0 0 57 31,579.51 13 3 0 5 15 563 1,093 53 19 154 631 33 0 59 17 11 * N e w b u ry p o rt ...... 283 46 36 12 20 0 0 4 8 4 1 1,992.02 25 6 2 37 25 48 538 2,703 136 32 572 1,308 76 0 79 ) No. Berkshire, North Adams 234 18 32 0 2 0 1,668 5 12 6 2 1 .9 0 0 .1 3 7 2 0 9 2 7 0 280 654 1,977 38 1 273 380 I Second Essex. Amesbury 43 2 98 1 6,545 0 3 1 14,652.94 17 9 4 12 138 13 18 6 13 0 0 102 281 2,423 116 22 383 8 I C h a rle sto w n ...... 1,481 95 4 81 7 50 3 3 4 1 1,718.46 1 1 4 0 6 78 146 42 21 2 0 135 101 3,631 125 1 0 4 0 514 356 19 5 62 7 10,547 0 8 2 16.401.17 26 I Fourth Berkshire, Adams 91 15 4 4 2 0 0 68 4 34 1.01 1 39 2 1 27 22 1 Lee ...... 2 69 596 18 25 81 0 1,732 1 0 4 2 ,9 7 1 .0 0 87 1 6 1 1 0 0 13 310 2,302 12 6 0 11 8 22 92 1.825 34 15 40 3 265 0 3 2 ' So. Berkshire, Great Barrington 169 7 9 7 3 0 0 37 376 6 ,4 0 0 .0 0 13 2 1 8 7 1.980 120 8 130 1,405 44 0 36 0 85 0 1 Third Essex, Ipswich ...... 83 1 1 7 5 0 0 0 4 4 13,079.00 1 1 7 2 9 4 24 124 631 12 15 75 430 17 0 27 0 East Franklin, Orange ...... 34 15 3 3 4 423 0 2 1 3 ,8 5 7 .0 0 5 2 0 2 16 0 0 44 183 48 0 6 0 19 271 11 I East Hampshire, Ware ...... 62 10 0 63 14 41 7 11 5 6 .5 7 5 .0 0 2 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 19 394 238 9 0 29 3 2 1 W illiamstown ...... 144 1 1 0 9 0 169 0 4 1 6,31 1.74 1 1 49 4 2 1 0 0 0 16 132 694 6 1 1. 3 1 W in c h e n d o n ...... 21 16 604 10 0 12 1 362 0 0 0 58 5 4 0 0 0 0 33 202 3 ,8 3 9 .0 0 5 2 0 2 3 701 52 0 82 395 48 0 58 0 5 2 0 Dukes, Edgartown ...... 68 3 7 5 0 0 1 3 .7 2 7 .6 0 3 0 0 1 2 14 308 74 4 40 0 73 435 12 2 16 1 I Nantucket ...... 55 3 5 3 1 0 762 0 2 0 3.0 5 6 .1 8 2 0 1 1 2 0 14 94 506 16 4 117 247 24 0 24 0 214 0 0 1 2 ,7 5 5 .1 6 0 0 0 0 2 TOTALS 94 ,2 4 2 12,194 14.193 3,829 7,838 74 5 >9,158 8 7 ,5 6 9 574,400 1 1,319 8,080 56,621 320,1 1 1 7,293 791 19,183 668 1,560,149 4 ,3 9 2 1,125 1,041 3,327,505.85 10,986 4.324 1,454 10,964 10,236 all Time Courts 79 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT CIVIL 19 6 8 1969 Tort ...... 584 649 Contract or tort ...... 46 46 All others ...... 0 0 Total actions removed ..... 872 Net entries after removals: Contract ...... 18,313 17,192 Tort ...... 4,570 5,191 Contract or tort ...... 403 362 All others ...... 899 1,011 Total 24,185 23,756 Transferred from Superior Court 2,663 3,823 Total ...... 26,848 27,579 Actions defaulted: Contract ...... 10,975 9,922 Tort ...... 898 1,312 Contract or tort ... 50 51 All others ...... 301 353 Total ...... 12,224 11,638 Trials:* Contract ...... 915 781 Tort ...... 1,824 1,735 Contract or tort ... 57 55 All others ...... 241 272 Total ...... 3,037 2,843 Plaintiffs’ findings:** Contract ...... 754 657 Tort ...... 857 776 Contract or tort ... 0 0 All others ...... 98 137 Total ...... 1,709 1,570 Defendants’ findings:** Contract ...... 117 89 Tort ...... 238 224 Contract or tort ... 35 9 All others ...... 140 140 Total ...... 530 462 A p p e l l a t e D i v i s i o n : Reports allowed: REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.d . 166 CIVIL 1968 1969 Contract ...... 6 10 Tort ...... 10 10 Contract or tort 3 1 Ali others ...... 0 0 Total ...... 19 21 Reports disallowed: Contract ...... 3 0 Tort ...... 4 0 Contract or tort ...... 1 0 All others ...... 0 0 Total ...... 8 0 Cases heard: Contract ...... 10 8 Tort ...... 13 9 Contract or tort ...... 2 1 All others ...... 0 0 Total ...... 25 18 Cases affirmed:** Contract ...... 7 12 Tort ...... 1 3 Contract or tort ...... 1 3 All others ...... 0 0 Total ...... 9 18 Cases reversed:** Contract ...... 1 1 Tort ...... 11 3 Contract or tort ...... 0 1 All others ...... 0 0 Total ...... 12 5 Cases consolidated under G. L. c. 223, § 2: Contract ...... 9 18 Tort ...... 159 160 Contract or tort ...... 0 3 Total ...... 168 181 Appeals to Supreme Judicial Court perfected ...... 2 1 Appeals to Supreme Judicial Court affirmed ...... 0 2 81 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT CIVIL 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Appeals to Supreme Judicial Court reversed ...... 1 Plaintiffs’ judgments By default: Contract ...... 12,061 11,497 Tort ...... 490 771 Contract or tort ...... 0 9 All others ...... 249 219 Total ...... 12,800 12,496 After trial: Contract ...... 754 657 Tort ...... 857 776 Contract or tort ...... 0 0 All others ...... 98 137 Total ...... 1,709 1,570 By agreement: Contract ...... 1,130 1,141 Tort ...... 2,155 1,592 Contract or tort ...... 0 0 All others ...... 4 8 Total ...... 3,289 2,741 Defendants’ judgments By non-suit: Contract ...... 38 20 Tort ...... 107 94 Contract or tort . 13 1 All others ...... 2 13 Total 160 128 After trial: Contract ...... 1 1 7 89 Tort ...... 238 224 Contract or tort ...... 35 9 All others ...... 140 140 Total ...... 530 462 By agreement: Contract ...... 154 104 Tort ...... 182 59 Contract or tort 0 0 All others ...... 0 0 Total 336 163 82 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P-D- 165 CIVIL 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Amount of plaintiffs’ judgments: Contract ...... $ 6,078,056.68 $ 7,183,888.33 Tort ...... 1,122,593.30 817,440.62 Contract or tort ...... — — All others ...... 112.00 0.00 Total ...... 7,200,761.88 8,001,328.95 Average of plaintiffs’ judgments: Contract ...... $ 435.87 $ 540.43 Tort ...... 320.55 260.17 Contract or tort ...... — —- All others ...... 32 0.00 Average of all judgments ...... 404.58 476.07 * Remanded cases included in total tried (1968) (1969) 808 839 ** Some cases are heard before the reporting period and decided during it and some are heard and decided during the reporting period. CRIMINAL 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Complaints granted by the Court: Automobile violations ...... 11,176 8,242 Parking violations ...... 169,161 173,156 Domestic Relations ...... 231 119 Drunkenness in Court ...... 4,795 4,495 Pedestrian violations ...... 4,220 1,981 Other criminal cases ...... 6,915 10,738 Total 196,489 1 98,731 Not arrested, pending trial 73,8 6 0 98,036 Trial by the Court: Pleaded guilty ...... 101,415 73,332 Pleaded not guilty .... 21,223 27,363 Total ...... 1 2 2 ,6 3 8 100,695 Disposition of complaints tried by the Court: Placed on file, dismissed, etc. 10,669 10,358 Defendants acquitted ...... 7,040 4,743 Bound over to Grand Jury 380 339 Placed on Probation (not including surrenders) ...... 4,371 3,510 Defendants fined ...... 98,469 79,892 Fines appealed ...... 173 208 Imprisonments ...... 970 919 P.D. 166 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 83 CRIMINAL 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Imprisonments appealed ...... 561 724 Pending for sentence ...... 5 2 Total ...... 122,638 100,695 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 Search warrants issued ...... 318 544 Inquests held...... 0 0 Drunkenness released by Probation Officer 5,854 6,599 Parking tags issued by police ...... 659,549 736,647 Pedestrian control notices(J-Walking) ...... 8,466 3,041 Rubbish disposal notices ...... 25 3 Finances : Received from parking tag office ...... $ 1,308,607.13 1,963,863.16 Received from court fines, fess, forfeitures, etc...... 632,270.00 585,299.50 Total Turned over to Commonwealth and the City of Boston ...... 1,940,877.13 2,549,162.66 Received as bail by court ...... 22,665.00 43,745.00 Total Finances handled by the Court ...... $ 1,963,542.13 2,592,907.66 84 REPORT TO SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P D. 166 B o sto n Ju v e n il e C o u r t Comparative statistics of the court for two years follow: COMPLAINTS 1968 1969 Juvenile: Juvenile Criminal: Boys ...... 23 21 Girls ...... — 23 - 21 Delinquent: Boys ...... 1,517 1,815 Girls ...... 349 1,866 503 2,318 Adult: Men ...... 21 20 Women ...... 13 34 15 35 Children in need of care and protection ...... (11) 5 5 (37) 17 17 Totals ...... 1,928 2,391 Judicial Determinations — hearings* ...... 8,373 10,554 Pending cases: Juvenile: Boys ...... (526) 681 (684) 900 Girls ...... (170) 182 863 (229) 283 1,183 Adults: Men ...... (28) 32 (33) 41 Women ...... (11) 11 43 (14) 15 56 Children in need of care and protection ...... (32) 14 14 (40) 14 14 Totals ...... 920 1,253 * (Judicial Determinations include all matters concerning all cases that are brought for de cision before the Justice of the Court; findings, dispositions, orders, and all changes in cases, such as custody arrangements, surrenders and continuances for case records.) . In the above table complaints in the various categories are stated and totalled. Individuals appear in ( ).