A Century of English Judicature. trates. Clear sighted, sagacious and quick oí apprehension, they were masters at nisi pmts. 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,
79
plodding lawyer whose subsequent elevation to the woolsack only served to detract by comparison from his good reputation as a common law judge. Of the puisnes, Maule. (1839-55), who served through most of this period, was
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TINDAL.
skill in analysis and wide acquaintance with precedents.1 Wilde was a learned but 1 Acton v. Blundell, 13 L. J., Ex. 289; Marston r. Fox, 8 do. 293; Panton v. Williams, ю do. 545; James v. Plant, 6 do. 260; Hitchcock v. Cocker, 6 do. 266; Scarborough v. Saville. 6 do. 270; Howden f. Simpson, 8 do. 281: Chanter v. Léese, 9 do. 327; Sadler v. Dixon, n do. 435; Whyte v. Rose. ii 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, il Cl. & F. 155; R. v.
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 Millis, ю do. 534:' Shore v. Wilson, 9 do. 353; Coxhead v. Richards, 2 C. B. 569; Flight v. Booth, i Bing. N. C. 377: Cook v. Ward. 4 M. & P. 99; Kemble v. Farrcn, 3 do. 425; Margetson v. Wright. 5 do. 606.
