Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/788

 774 V. BENCH AND BAR of his work as a justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, as a member of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, as an adviser to the House of Lords, and as a member of the court of final appeal. As a general illustration of his method of exhausting a subject, both from principle and from precedent, reference may be made to his examination, in the case of Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 7 App. Cas. 741, of the modern law of libel. The value of the details of his elaborate argu- ments may be observed in his admirable statement in Cole v. North Western Bank, 10 C. P. 362, of the difficulties which the common law put in the way of the customs of merchants. Lord Blackburn contributed a leading case to the reports, not after his death, like Lord St. Leonards, but while serving Co., 41-33; Lloyd v. Spence, 41-93; Newby v. Van Oppen, 41-188; Armstrong v. Stokes, 41-253; Crouch v. Credit Fonder Co., 42-183; Searle v. I.averick, 43-43; Queen v. Castro, 43-105; Taylor v. Green- halg, 43-168; lonides v. Pender, 43-227; Bettini v. Gye, 45-209; Mac- kenzie V. Whitworth, 45-233; Lindsay v. Cundy, 45-381; Queen v. Col- lins, 45-413; Shand v. Bowes, 45-507. In the Court of Exchecfuer Chamber: Santos v. Illidge, 29 L. J., C. P. 348; Fitzjohn v. Mackinder, 30-257; Jones v. Tapling, 31-342; Blades v. Higgs, 32-182; Xenos v. Wickham, 33-13; Lee v. Jones, 34-131 ; Appleby V. Meyers, 36-331; Holland v. Hodgson, 41-146; Brunsmead v. Harrison, 41-190; Clarke v. Wright, 30 L. J., Ex. 113; Fletcher v. Rylands, 35-154; Duke of Buccleuch v. Met. Bd. of Wks., 39-130; Riche v. Ashbury Co., 43-177; Thorn v. Mayor of London, 44-62. Advisory opinions in House of Lords: Cox v. Hickman, 8 H. L. C. 277; Betts v. Menzies, 10-131; Peek v. No. Staffordshire Ry., 10-473; Harwood v. Gt. Northern Ry., 11-666; Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, 11-686; 1 E. & L App. 102; Rankin v. Potter, 6-97; Hammersmith Ry. v. Brand, 4-236; Great Western Ry. v. Sutton, 4-236; Castrique w. Ir- vine, 4-425; Hollins v. Fowler, 7-757. In the House of Lords: Direct U.S. Cable Co. v. Anglo- Am. Tel. Co., 2 App. Cas. 410; Bowes v. Shand, 2-455; McKinnon v. Armstrong, 2-531; Brogden v. Met. Ry. Co., 2-666; Rossiter v. Miller, 3-115; Orr Ewing V. Registrar, 4-479; Kendall v. Hamilton, 4-541; Fairlee v. Boosey, 4-726; Sturla v. Freccia, 5-639; Peorks v. Moseley, 5-714; Met. Asylum Dist. v. Hill, 6-202; Jennings v. Jordan, 6-711; Dalton V. Angus, 6-808; Capital & Counties Bk. v. Henty, 7-769; Countess of Rothes V. Kircaldy Waterworks, 7-700; Sarf v. Jardine, 7-345; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 7-197; Maddison v. Alderson, 8-487; Hughes v. Percival, 8-445; Bradlaugh v. Clarke, 8-369; Harvey v. Farnie, 8-5.7; Singer Mfg. Co., v. Loog, 8-28; Thomson v. Weems, 9-677; Fookes V. Beer, 9-614; Mersey Steel Co. v. Naylor, 9-442; Collins v. Collins, 9-228; Smith v. Chadwick, 9-192; Lyell v. Kennedy, 9-84; Ewing v. Orr Ewing, 9-42; 10-499; Speight v. Gaunt, 9-15; Svendsen v. Wal- lace, 10-409; Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co. 10-358; Met. Bank V. Pooley, 10-220; Sewell v. Burdick, 10-90; Seath v. Moore, 11-369; London Ry. v. Truman, 11-58.