a few years in this court before going to the scene of his more distinguished labors in the Exchequer. During the latter part of the period the court was further strengthened by the accession of Wightman (1841-63) and Erie (1846-59). Wightman was one of the
According to the unanimous voice of his contemporaries, Erie was one of the best of the earlier judges. He had that power of quickly grasping the essential features of a case which marksthelegalmind;andalthough his mind lacked flexibility and subtlety, and
LORD DENMAN.
last of the great school of special pleaders; but he was besides a man of broad and prac tical views, and made an admirable judge. He sat in the Queen's Bench for twentythree years, the trusted colleague of three chief justices.1 'Gift v. Schwabe, 17, L. J., С. Р., 2; Howard v. Gossett, 6 Sh. Fr. 105; Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 360; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 do. 842; Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216.
he was extremely tenacious of his own views, the common sense which generally charac terized his work made him a safe judge.2 But the ablest associate throughout the 'Kennedy v. Brown, 13 С. В., (N. S.) 677: lonides v. Universal Marine Association, 14 do. 259; R. v. Rowlands, 5 Cox Cr. Cas. 406: R. v. Rowton, io do. 25; Thompson v. Hopper, 25 L. J., Q. В., 24о; Wheelton v. Hardisty, 26 do. 265: Ricket v. Metropolitan Ry. 34 do. 257: Ex parte Fernandez, 30 L. J., C. P. 321; Brand v. Ham
