302
71ге Green Bag.
It is impracticable to. give within brief limits more than an illustration of Black burn's vast contributions to the law. In mere volume his work was equalled dur ing the century by Parke alone. There are more than six hundred cases in the reports in which he formulated in detail the reasons which influenced his judg ment, and in more than one-quarter of these cases he delivered the unanimous opinion of the court. The following list1 will give some indication of his work as a Justice of the Court of King's Bench, as a member of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, as an adviser to the House of Lords, and as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. It comprises most of his ablest efforts. 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 r. Henty, 7 App. Cas. 741, on the modern law of libel. The value of the details of his elaborate arguments may be observed in his admirable statement in Cole v. North Western Bank, ю'С. 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
During this period the Court of Common Pleas grew rapidly in importance and reached its highest standing. After Cockburn's short service in this court (1856-59) the succeeding chiefs were Erie (1859-66), and Bovill (1866-73). Erie added in this court to the substantial reputation which he had made on the King's Bench. The Court of Common Pleas under his presidency, as the Attorney-General said on his retirement, "obtained the highest confidence of the suitor, the public and the profession.
'In the Court of Queen's Bench : Campbell?'. Spottiswoode, 32 L. J., Q. B. 185; Lloyd v. Guibert, 33-241, etc.; Burges v. Wickham, 33-17; Сое v. Wise, 33-281; Moody г». Corbett, 34-166; Maurpoice v. Westley, 34229; Wilson v. Bank of Victoria, 36-89; Fleet v. Perrins, 37-223; Aliens. Graves, 39-157; Godard v. Gray, 4062; lonides r'. Pacific Ins. Co., 41-33; Lloyd v. Spence, 41-93; Newby v. Van Oppen, 41-188; Armstrong v. Stokes, 41-253; Crouch v. Credit Foncier Co., 42-183; Searle v. Laverick, 43-43; Queen v. Castro, 43-105; Taylor v. Greenhalg, 43-168; lorides v. Pender, 43-227; Bettini v. Gye, 45-209; Mackenzier'. Whttworth, 45233; Lindsay v. Cundy, 45-381; Queen j'. Collins, 45413; Shand r. Bowes, 45-507. In the Court of Exchequer Chamber : Santos t>. Illidge, 29-348; Clark,'. Wright, 30-7, etc.; Fitzjohn v. Mackneder, 30-257; Jones v. Tapling, 31-342; Blades v. Higgs, 32-182; Scott i/. Seymour, 32-61; Xenos г'. Wickham, 33-13; Lee v. Jones, 34-131; Hidson z'. Barclay, 34-217; Bullen v. Sharp, 34-105; Coles y. Turner, 3^-169; Fletcher v. Kylands, 35-154; Appleby v. Meyers, 36-^1; Duke of Buccleuch, v. Met. Bd. of Wks., 3(1-130; Hoi land v. Hodgson, 41-146; Brunsmead -'. Harrison, 41190; Duncan v. Hill, 42-179; Riche v. Ashbury Co., 43177; Liver Alkali Co., v. Johnson, 43-216; Thorn v. Mayor of London, 44-62. Advisory opinions in House of Lords: Сох г>. Hick-
man, 8 H. L., 277; Betts i'. Menzies, 10-131; Peek r. No. Staffordshire Ry., 10-473; Hanvoodp. Gt. Northern Ry., 11-666; Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, 11-686; I E. & I. App. 102; Rankin v. Potter, 6-97; Hammersmith Ry. v. Brand, 4-236; Great Western Ry. v. Sutton, 4-236; Castrique v. Irvine, 4-425; Hollins v. Fowler, 7-757. In the House of Ix>rds : Direct U. S. Cable Co., v. Anglo-Am. Tel. Co., 2 A. C. 410; Bowes r. Shand, 2455; McKinnon v. Armstrong, 2-531; Brogden т. Met. Ry. Co., 2-666; Rossitert/. Miller, 3-115; Orr Ewing v. Registrar, 4-479; Kendall v. Hamilton, 4-541; Fairlee v. Boosey,4-720; Sturlaz'. Freccia, 5-639; Peorksr. Moseley, 5-714; Met. Asylum Dist. v. Hill, 6-202; Jennings p. Jordan, 6-7 11; Dalton v. Angus, 6-808; Capital & Coun ties Bk. v. Henty, 7-769; Countess of Rothes v. Kircaldy Waterworks, 7-700; Sarf v. Jardine, 7-345; Rhodes i'. Rhodes. 7-197; Maddison v. Alderson, 8-487; Hughes v. Percival, 8-445; Bradlaugh 7'. Clarke, 8-369; Harvey v. Farnie, 8-57; Singer Mfg. Co., v, Ix>og, 8-28; Thom son v. Weems, 9-677; Fookes v. Beer, 9-614; Mersey Steel Co. г>. Naylor, 9-442; Collins v. Collins, 9-228; Smith i'. Chadwick, 9-192; Lyell v. Kennedy, 9-84; F.wing -'. Orr F.wing, 9-42; 10-499; Speight t>. Gaunt, 9-15; Svendsen v. Wallace, 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; Lon don Ry. v. Truman, 11-58.
St. Leonards, but while serving as a judge. A litigant named Rosanna Fray, who felt aggrieved at his disposition of her case, sued him for damages, and the case of Fray v. Blackburn, 3 B. & S. 576, formally estab lished the principle that no action will lie against a judge of a superior court for any thing clone in his judicial capacity, although it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly. Besides Wightman and Crompton (185365) in the earlier part, the other principal puisnes in the King's Bench during the period were Mellor (1861-79), Shee (1863-68), and Lush (1865-80). Lush was the ablest of these; he closed his painstaking and useful service in the Court of Appeal.
