courts are available or, in lieu thereof, local facilities were made available at no cost to the Federal Government.

Mr. MONAGAN. Yes, I realize that. As I say, there are State court facilities that could be made available at both locations.

Mr. FOLEY. In that regard it is customary to ask the committee be furnished with some official authorization to the effect that facilities will be made available.

Mr. MONAGAN. Well, I cannot do that at the present time.
The CHAIRMAN. How could we satisfy that condition then?

Mr. MONAGAN. Well, I will try to get that information. As I say, I don't have it at the present time but I will try to get it.

The CHAIRMAN. You will endeavor to furnish it?

Mr. MONAGAN. Yes, I will.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. TOLL. May I inquire from the gentleman from Connecticut how many of the 779 cases are personal injury cases?

Mr. MONAGAN. Yes. Of the 779, 556 are more than 6 months oldMr. TOLL. I asked how many were personal injury cases.

Mr. MONAGAN. I am coming to that, if I may explain the figures. Of the 556 more than 6 months old, 175 are personal injury or debt

cases.

Mr. TOLL. About 25 percent.

Mr. MONAGAN. And that is where a great deal of the increase has come in recent years.

Mr. TOLL. May I ask the same question I asked before, if these cases were taken out of Federal courts and put onto State courts, that would reduce the need for these additional judges?

Mr. MONAGAN. Well, it would be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I mean, the State courts are piled up right to their necks with the same sort of litigation, so really that is no solution of the problem, either in Connecticut or any other State, to just move them into another court, and they certainly have the right, if they want to, to go into Federal court.

Mr. TOLL. But it certainly should reduce the caseload?

Mr. MONAGAN. Well, you would reduce the load on the bananas, and on the grapefruit you would increase it. So I do not think that is a real solution for the people of Connecticut who, after all, are part of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Monagan. We will now hear from the Deputy Attorney General, Judge Lawrence E. Walsh.

(Material submitted by Mr. Monagan is as follows:)

Hon. JOHN S. MONAGAN,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT,
Hartford, January 29, 1960.

DEAR JOHN: The clerk of the court has furnished some additional material concerning the state of our docket which I enclose for your submission to the Judiciary Committee. The statistics on civil, criminal, and bankruptcy cases for the fiscal years 1940 through 1959 have been supplemented by adding the figures for the first 6 months of fiscal 1960, bringing the tables up to date as of December 31 last.

I also enclose a table of the time intervals from issue to trail and from filing to disposition of civil cases in which a trial was held for the fiscal years 1951 through 1959. You will note that the median interval from issue to trial has steadily increased from 4.7 months in fiscal 1951 to 19.9 months in fiscal 1959, and that the median interval from filing to disposition has also increased from 8.9 months in fiscal 1951 to 25.5 months in fiscal 1959.

I enclose also a list of cases which in the clerk's opinion are likely to result in long trials, with the clerk's comments thereon, containing some 50 civil and 2 criminal cases.

With kindest personal regards,

Sincerely,

J. JOSEPH SMITH,
U.S. District Judge.

JANUARY 28, 1960.

Hon. JOHN S. MONAGAN,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHN: In answer to your inquiry of today, our present civil docket situation in this district is as follows:

Cases pending Dec. 31, 1959--

Pending less than 6 months.

Filed prior to July 1, 1959--

779

223

556

Of the 556 cases more than 6 months old on December 31, 1959, 8 had been tried and were awaiting disposition, 6 inactive, and 127 not yet at issue. Of the remaining 415 active cases at issue and more than 6 months old, 9 are land condemnation cases involving 75 tracts.

Judge Anderson and I have had recent assistance from other judges, including Judge Gibson of the district of Vermont, and Judges Moore, Clark, Hincks, and Swan of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit. Judge Lumbard is continuing efforts to arrange additional assistance. Judge Clark is presently trying cases for us at New Haven and he and Judge Swan are helping out there next week. This, however, adds to the load of the already overburdened circuit judges, so that we are occasionally called upon to fill in on the court of appeals. In recent years we have had invaluable assistance also from other judges than those already mentioned, including Judge Lumbard, Judge Martin of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judges Ryan and Leibell of the southern district of New York.

I enclose comparative tables on the civil, criminal, and bankruptcy cases commenced and terminated during the fiscal years 1940-59. You will note that the civil caseload rose sharply about 8 years ago and has since continued at a level almost twice that which prevailed before 1952. While bankruptcy and criminal caseloads have also risen sharply, the civil caseload is by far the most significant so far as the need for judges is concerned.

Civil cases filed and terminated in the first 6 months of this fiscal year are running slightly ahead of last year's figures for the same months.

I have asked the clerk to furnish me an up-to-date list of cases likely to result in long trials, which I will send to you when received.

Judge Anderson and I feel strongly that the growth of this district, whose population is now approaching 2,500,000, and the resultant increase in judicial

business which has for some years now been reflected in our caseloads, makes necessary a permanent increase to four judgeships for the district of Connecticut. With kindest regards,

Sincerely,

J. JOSEPH SMITH,
U.S. District Judge.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Time intervals from issue to trial of civil cases in which a trial was held

Time intervals from filing to disposition of civil cases in which a trial was held

Civil cases commenced and terminated during the fiscal years 1940-60, and pending cases at the close of each such fiscal year

Bankruptcy cases commenced and terminated during the fiscal years 1940-60, and pending cases at the close of each such fiscal year

Criminal cases commenced and terminated during the fiscal years 1940–60, and pending cases at the close of each such fiscal year

CERTAIN PENDING CASES AT ISSUE LIKELY TO RESULT IN LONG TRIALS

Civil 3533-Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation v. United Aircraft Corporation

Patent infringement suit filed December 1, 1951. Complaint alleges infringement of U.S. letters patent for an invention involving an engine-cooling device for airplane motors. An answer and counterclaim have been filed. Numerous depositions have been taken in England and in many locations in the United States. The papers in this case at the present time fill two file drawers. Although the case has not been claimed for trial, it appears that counsel will take such action within a few months. Steps have been taken to ascertain the floor strength of the Federal buildings at both seats of court because it is contemplated that exhibits of tremendous weight will be used at the trial. There is every likelihood that this case will require a substantial amount of court time. Civil 3924-William S. Watts & Aircraft Products, Inc. v. Burndy Engineering Co., Inc.

Action in three counts (filed July 28, 1952) seeking an adjudication that Watts rather than defendant's assignor is true inventor of subject matter of the patents involved. The answer contains 47 defenses and 3 counterclaims. The reply has 31 affirmative defenses to the counterclaims. On June 7, 1955, the court entered an order dismissing the fourth counterclaim. Although the case is not on the trial list, the trial will most likely be a long one.

Civil 4512-Bert Naster v. Russell Maguire

Contract suit for $150,000 filed July 16, 1953. Although replete with allegations of fraud, in reliance upon which the plaintiff asserts that he was induced to enter into certain contracts with the defendant, the complaint alleges that the contracts entered into were rescinded and that some sums of money were paid by defendant to the plaintiff as restitution incidental to the rescission. Counsel have indicated by letter, as follows: (1) that there are certain depositions pending; (2) that there are many questions of facts involved and voluminous evidence which must be covered; and (3) that there are a number of questions of law involved. As soon as this case reaches the trial stage, it is likely to require a considerable amount of court time unless the matter is settled.

Civil 5221-Eleanor Harley, et al. v. Benjamin Bromberg, et al.

Breach of warranty suit filed by plaintiff on December 13, 1954, for $225,000 for personal injuries, medical expenses, and loss of services as a result of an explosion of a can of Snoflake Spray. The case has not reached the pretrial stage; however, counsel estimate this case will require about 3 weeks of trial time.

Civil 5350-Frank B. Marshall, d/b/a Marshall Drilling Co. v. Eliot B. Pratt, et al.

Breach of contract (filed February 9, 1955). Suit for $70,000 covering sum allegedly due for drilling an oil well in McKinley County, N. Mex. Extensive depositions have been taken in this action and are on file; others are contemplated. An amended complaint was filed on April 14, 1959, and an answer to the amended complaint was filed on May 8, 1959. The case is on the court trial list. I understand from counsel that this case will be ready for trial as soon as reached and most likely it will require a substantial amount of the court's time.

Civil 5396.-United States of America v. D'Esopo Funeral Co., Inc., et al.

Suit filed on March 8, 1955, to recover tax assessments amounting to $186,981.53. Although the defendant corporation is insolvent, the Government has been successful in joining various individuals who, it alleges, are liable as transferees of the assets of the corporation. The depositions of eight individuals have already been taken. It appears that when the issues are clearly defined that they will be somewhat complex; consequently, it appears that a considerable amount of the trial judge's time will be required to dispose of the litigation. The case is on the trial list awaiting a pretrial assignment.

Civil 6259.-Johnson Publishing Co., Inc. v. The Onyx Publishing Co., Inc., a Connecticut Corporation and John Santangelo, et al.

Trademark infringement filed on July 25, 1956. Plaintiff in its prayer for relief asks for a permanent injunction and an accounting for damages because of the alleged trademark infringement and unfair trade practices. Judging from pretrial activities, it would appear that the trial in this case may be lengthy. Civil 6477.-Burrell Corporation v. The Perkin-Elmer Corp.

Patent and trademark infringement filed December 10, 1956. The issues involved in this case are indeed complex. The patents in dispute involve a gas separating and analyzing apparatus. Plaintiff also alleges infringement of its trademark "Fraction" because of defendant's use of a similar trademark "Fractometer." Plaintiff demands (1) permanent injunction; (2) declaratory judgment that two U.S. letters patents are valid and infringed; and (3) a complete accounting for alleged damages sustained through unfair competition and patent infringement. This case has been claimed for the trial list. And, in view of the nature of the litigation, I should assume that the trial will require a considerable amount of the court's time.

Civil 6532.-The W. E. Bassett Co. v. The H. C. Cook Company Light Corp., et al. Patent infringement and unfair competition. The complaint [filed January 29, 1957] asserts claims for relief in connection with the defendants' manufacture and sale of fingernail clippers, toenail clippers, and knives. The court has already heard and decided a large number of motions. Extensive depositions have been taken. [And it requires two drawers of a legal-size filing cabinet to accommodate the documents on file in this case.] Counsel have filed a claim for the trial list; the action is ready for a pretrial assignment. There are many things about this case which indicate a long trial.

Civil 6654.-Cutler Fruit Company, Inc. v. Fruit Industries, Inc.

Suit instituted on April 19, 1957, by plaintiff on two counts: (1) for breach of contract to sell a product exclusively to it in a limited territory in return for promotional and sales activity in such geographic area, and (2) in quantum meruit. [Damages of $100,000 are sought.] The court has denied a motion to dismiss. This case has been pretried and is now awaiting a trial assignment. In view of the nature of the litigation, it appears the case will require a substantial number of court-days.

Civil 6701.—Varian Associates v. Nuclear Magnetics Corp. and The Perkin-Elmer Corp.

l'atent infringement (filed May 28, 1957). This is an action for damages and an injunction for the alleged infringement of reissue patent which involves the subject of nuclear magnetic resonance, a characteristic property of the nuclei of atoms. A counterclaim has been filed under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of U.S. patent reissue No. 23,950. A number of motions have been disposed of and the case is on the trial