Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/523

 482

periods. Cairns (1866-68) and Page-Wood (1868) were elevated to the woolsack, and Rolt (1868-69), Selwyn (1868-69) and Gifford (1869-70) died in office. During his brief service as Lord Justice, Cairns justi fied the expectations raised by his distin guished career at the bar, and began in this court the splendid service which, continued in a higher tribunal, placed him in the front rank of English judges. In 1870 the unity of the court was again •restored under James (1870-81) and Mellish (1870-77). James was a most eminent judge, exceptionally learned, and gifted with a rare power of terse and clear enunciation of principles. Cairns said of him that he had a no less admirable share of common sense than of law. He had a highly trained mind, and always sought to get at the merits of a case. In quoting his own decisions he would humorously add, "which is an authority though I joined in it." His comprehension of a case was rapid and masterly, and his memory marvelous. Bramwell said on his death : "He possessed every quality and accomplishment that a judge needed. He had a very great intellect, at once keen and profound. He was a consummate lawyer, thoroughly imbued with legal principles. He was a man of vast experience, not merely in the law, but in those things which make a man what is commonly called a man of the world, fitted to deal with the affairs of the world. He had but one desire when he took his seat upon the bench, and that is, that justice should be done according to right.

It was said of him, and truly, that he was rapid in the formation of his opinions and confident in the expression of them, and so he was, and so a man of his ability had a right to be; but I can say this of him, that a more candid man never lived, nor one more ready to renounce an opinion, though he had given expression to it in the most confi dent way, if he thought it was wrong." His largest contributions to the law were in company law, in which the Joint Stock Com panies Acts gave him an opportunity, and in bankruptcy and patent law.1 Mellish was considered by many eminent judges the ablest advocate of his time before a court in bane. Lord Selborne said of him that ''as an advocate he was distinguished above all other men whom I remember at the bar bythe candor of his arguments and by the decision with which he threw aside every thing which did not seem to him relevant to the case and deserving of serious considera tion by the court which he was addressing." ¡Mellish belonged to the common law bar, but his mastery of the principles of juris-' prudence and the judicial quality of his intellect qualified him to sit in any court. He came to the bench with an impaired constitution, which limited his work both in quality and extent; but his subtle mind, stored with the learning of the common law, in combination with James' profound knowledge of equity, made a most satis factory court of appeal, and justified the subsequent establishment of a single court of appeal in law and equity. His special characteristics were his clear judgment and his power of luminous exposition. He had the rare faculty of extracting the pith of a

Protestant seed sown in his mind has taken such hold that if we are to suppose it to contain tares they can not be gathered up without great danger of rooting up also the wheat with them. Upon much consideration, I am of the opinion that the child's tranquility and 1 Harvey r. Farnie, 6 P. D. 35; Niboyet v. Niboyet, health, his temporal happiness and, if that can exist I apart from his spiritual welfare, his spiritual welfare also, 4 do. i; Massam v. Cattle Food Co., 14 Ch. D. 748; are too likely now to suffer importantly from an endeavor In rt Campden's Charities, 18 do. 310; New Sombrero at effacing his Protestant impressions not to render any Co. v. Erlanger, 5 do. 73; Smith v. Anderson, 1 5 do. 247; such attempt unsafe and improper." And Lord Justice Re Goodman's Trusts, 44 L. T. 527; Vimbleton Con Turner sagely adds, in answer to the argument that the servators z>. Dixon, i Ch. D. 362; Pike r/. Fitzgibbon. child was too young to have formed fixed opinions : 14 do. 837; In re Agar Ellis, ю do. 49; Re Canadian "May it not be that the impressions which have been il Works, i o Ch. App. 599; Barnes v. Addy, 9 Ch. 244; formed might lead to the instruction which would l>e given Day v. Brownrigg, I o Ch. D. 294; Johns v. James, 8 do. being received with carelessness or indifference, or, which 744; Macdonald v. Irvine, 8 do. 101; Rogers r. Inghara, would certainly not be less dangerous or less destructive 3 do. 351; Nitro Phosphate Co. v. London, etc., Docks. to the character of the boy, with affected acquiescence? " 9 do. 503.