Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/759

 ^0. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 745 malicious procurement of a breach of contract, is a good specimen of his style. The work of the Court of Common Pleas was limited in amount during this period. Until 1841 it was a closed court, and only sergeants could argue cases there. It enjoyed the services, however, of some very able lawyers. Of its three chiefs, Tindal (1829-46), Wilde (1846-50) and Jervis (1850- 56), Tindal and Jervis take high rank as magistrates. Clear sighted, sagacious and quick of apprehension, they were masters at nisi prius. Tindal was furthermore a profound lawyer, and his numerous opinions in this court and in the Exchequer Chamber display grasp of principle, accuracy of statement, skill in analysis and wide acquaintance with prec- edents.^ Wilde was a learned but plodding lawyer whose subsequent elevation to the woolsack only served to detract by comparison from his superior reputation as a common law judge. Of the puisnes, Maule (1839-55), who served through most of this period, was probably the most highly endowed. No one ever had a finer sense of the anomalies and incongruities of English law, and he never missed an opportunity to bring to bear on them his unrivalled powers of sarcasm and caustic humor. " As the rule is well established by decisions," he ironically remarks in Emmens v. Elderton, 4 H. L. Cas. 624, " it is not necessary to give any reasons in its support, or to say anything to show it to be a good and useful one." His subtle mind was balanced by good sense and entire freedom from technicality.^ But his mental gifts were smothered in 167; Wilson v. Eden, 19 do. 104; R. v. Scott, 25 L. J., Mag. Cas. 128; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. L. 1; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 do. 842; Wright V. Tatham, 5 CI. & F. 670; Shore v. Wilson, 9 do. 353. > Acton V. Blundell, 13 L. J., Ex. 289; Marston v. Fox, 8 do. 293; Panton v. Williams, 10 do. 545; James v. Plant, 6 do. 260; Hitchcock V. Cocker, 6 do. 266; Scarborough v. Saville, 6 do. 270; Howden ». Simpson, 8 do. 281; Chanter v. Leese, 9 do. 327; Sadler v. Dixon, 11 do. 435; Whyte v. Rose, 11 do. 457; Collins v. Evans, 13 L. J., Q. B. 180; R. V. Frost, 4 St. Tr. 130; Charge to Grand Jury, do. 1411; R. V. O'Connell, 11 CI. & F. 155; R. v. Millis, 10 do. 534; Shore v. Wilson, 9 do. 353; Coxhead v. Richards, 2 C. B. 569; Flight v. Booth, 1 Bing. N. C. 377; Cook v. Ward, 4 M. & P. 99; Kemble v. Farren, 3 do. 425; Margetson v. Wright, 5 do. 606. 639; M'Naghten's case, 10 CI. & F. 199; Shore ». Wilson, 9 CI. & F. 353.
 * R. V. Burton, 1 Dears. C. C. 282; Borrodaile v. Hunter, 5 M. & G.