sanctions to the contract of marriage; Ex parte Fernandez, 30 L. J., C. P. 321, on the validity of a commitment for contempt by a court of assize; Lloyd r. Guibert, I Q. B. 115, as to what law governs as to sea damage in a contract of affreightment; Expósito v Bowden, 8 St. Tr. 817, as to the effect on a con tract of affreightment of trading with an enemy: Mayor of London v. Cox, 3 E. and I. App. 252, on the history and principles of the practice of foreign attachment; Notara v. Henderson, 7 Q. B. 225, on the duties of the master of a vessel; Seymour г1. London and Insurance Co., 41 L. J., C. P. 193, on contra band of war; Phillips г: Eyre, 6 O. B. I, on the jurisdiction of English courts over acts committed abroad; Mody î1. Gregson, 4 Ex. 41), as to the application of the doctrine of warranty in a sale by sample; Dawkins г. Lord Rokeby, 4 F. and F. 829, as to abso lute privilege in libel; Henwood r. Har rison, 7 C. P. 606, on fair criticism of matters of public interest; Shrewsbury г: Scott, 6 C. B. I, on the disabilities of Cath olics with respect to real property. It may be said of all these opinions, as Lord Campbell said in the House of Lords of Willes's opinion in Beamish i1. Beamish, that they "display extraordinary research and will hereafter be considered a repertory of all the learning to be found in any language upon the subject." * 1 For further study, see also : Cook v. IJster, 13 С. B. (n. s.) 543 (bills of exchange), etc.; Dakin v. Oxley, 15
Besides Williams, who continued his ser vice in this period, valuable assistance was rendered by Byles (1858-73), Keating (185975), M. E. Smith (1865-71). Byles con tributed largely to the popularity of the court in commercial cases, in which he was ex tremely accurate. Smith was an all-round influence for good; sagacious, sensible and practical, he added to the high standing of his tribunal. During this period the Court of Ex chequer declined in reputation, particularly during the latter half. Kelly, who succeeded Pollock in 1866 as Chief Baron, was old and soon became infirm; and an ill-assorted col lections of barons, of whom Martin was the ablest,1 detracted from the unity and authority of the court. Nevertheless, the court was distinguished throughout this period by the services of Bramwell (1856-76). C. B. (n. s.) 646 (charter party); Gt. Western Ry. r. Talley, 6 C. P. 44 (negligence); 'Hall v. Wright, 29 L. .!., Q. B. 43 (breach of promise); Intermaur ». Dames, I C. P. 274 (negligence); lonides v. Marine Ins. Co., 14 C.B. (n. s.) 259 (marine ins.); Kidston v. Empire Marine Ins. Co., I C. P. 535 (marine ins.); Malcomson v. O'Dea, ю II.!.. fit [ (evidence); Mountstephen v. I-akeman, 7 Q. B. 196 (statute of frauds); Patter v. Rankin, 3 С. Р. 562 (marine insurance); Ryder v. Wombell, 4 Kx. 32 in fant's necessaries); Reg. v. Rowton, ю Cox Cr. Cas. 37 (evidence); Renss v. Picksley, I Ex. 342 (statute of frauds); Santos i>. Illidge, 28 L. J., C. P. 317 (emancipa tion act); Wilson r. Jones, 2 Ex. 139 (insurance); Bonillon v. Lupton, 15 C. B. (n. s.) 113 (marine insurance). 1 Miller v. Salomons, 7 Ex. 475, etc; Embrey r. Owen, 6 ib. 353; Bellamy v. Majoribanks, 7 ib. 389; Crouch -: Great Northern Ry., и ib. 742; Hubbertsty r. Ward. S ib. 3"O; Read v. I^egard, 6 ib. 636; Dublin Ry. v. Black, 8 ib. 181.
