Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/573

 530

His statement of the modern law relating to blasphemy, on the trial of Ramsey and Foote, 48 L. T. 733, is in every way a notable effort. Lord Russell, who succeeded Coleridge as chief justice in 1894, had been for many years the leader of the common law bar; his name is associated with most of the great cases of the day. Although not a profound lawyer, he was a man of great force and dis played commendable energy in employing his authority in the furtherance of practical reforms in the procedure of his division. The institution of the new court for commercial causes was largely due to him. Like many of his predecessors he displayed great ability as a criminal judge. R. v. Munslow, 64 L. J., M. C. 138, is a good specimen of his judicial powers. He enjoyed the distinction of being the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of chief justice since the Reformation. The lord chancellor, the president of the Chancery Division, now practically confines his judicial labors to the House of Lords. The first president of the Probate. Divorce and Admiralty Division was Sir James (after wards Lord) Hannen. With his knowledge of the law relating to the various sections of his court, his painstaking industry, absolute impartiality and keen sense of the value of evidence, he won universal esteem. The spirit which animated his labors was dis played in his address at the conclusion of the hearing before the Parnell Commission, over which he presided. In speaking of the responsibility of the court he said that one hope supported them: "Conscious that throughout this great inquest we have sought only the truth, we trust that we shall be guided to find it. and set it forth plainly in the sight of all men." His opinions, which are more fully reasoned than those of Cress3 C. P. 0.319; Reg. v. Labouchere, 15 Cox Cr. Cas423; Mogue Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 21 L. B. D544; Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63; Twycrose v. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469; Bowen г. Hall, 6 Î,. B. D. v,1 (dissenting); Ford it. Wiley, 16 Cox Cr. Cas. 088; Bradlaugh v. Newdigate, II L. B. D.; Currie v. Misa, lo Ex. 153 (dissenting); Mackonochie v. Penzance, 4 L. B. D. 697; еж parte Daisy Hopkins, 17 Cox Cr. Cas. 448.

well, are notable for their graceful diction and apt illustrations.1 He was promoted to the House of Lords in 1891. Among the more prominent justices of the Queen's Bench Division during this period may be mentioned Hawkins2 and Stephen.3 whose specialty was criminal law. Mathew and Wright in commercial law, and Chitty1 and Kay in equity. COURT OF APPEAL. The second section of the Supreme Court. the Court of Appeal, is composed of the Master of the Rolls and five Lords Justices, with the heads of the three great divisions of the High Court, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the president of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Divisions, as members r.r offids. It exercises a general appellate jurisdiction in civil cases from the determination of the High Court. It was originally planned to make this the final court of appeal, but the pressure from the House of Lords was too strong, and in the end the judicial functions of the House were left undisturbed; so that the Supreme Court is supreme only in name. The original con ception of this court, as a single court in law and equity, was that the contact of minds trained in the different systems would subject the current ideas and tendencies of the two rival systems to scrutiny, and thereby 1 Boughton 71. Knight L. R. 3 P. 64; Durham?'. Dur ham; Sugden v. St. Leonards, I P. D. 154; Gladstone v. Gladstone; Crawford v. Dilke; Frederick Legitimacy Case; Niboyet v. Niboyet, 4 P. D. i; Smee v. Smee, 5 P. D. 84; Sottomoyer v. De Karros, 5 P. D. 94; Bloxam v. Favre, 9 P. D. 130; Harvey v. Farine, 52 L. J., P. 53; Peek v. Derry, 37 Ch. D. 591; Haster?'. "Haster. 42 L. J. P. i; The Rhosina; Duke of Bucclench r. Met. Bd. Wks. 5 E. and I. App. 418; Bailey v. De Crespiguy. 4 L. B. 184. 749; R. v. Clarence, 58 L. T., Mag. Cas. ю; R.r. Lillyman, 65 do. 195; Ford v. Wiley, 16 Cox Cr. Cas. 688. ' 'R. v. Toison, 23 Q. B. 169; F. v. Serné, 16 Cox Cr. Cas. 311; R. v. Clarence, 16 do. 523; R. v. Cox, 15 do. 612; R. v. Price, 15 do. 393; R. v. Doherty, 16 do. 307. « Elwes v. Briggs Gas Co., 33 Ch. D. 562; Re Earl of Adnor's Will Trusts, 45 do. 402; Edmonds r. Blaina Furnace Co., 36 do. 31 5; Wallis v. I Tands ( i Soi), 2 Ch. 75; Starr-Bowkett Bldng, Society Contract, 4^2 Ch. D. 375; De Francesco v. Barnum, 43 do. 165; Re Nevin (1891), 2 Ch. 306; Dashvrood v. Magniac (1801), 3 Ch. 306.
 * Re Castioni, 17 Cox Cr. Cas. 237; R. v. Curtis, 15 do.