^0. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 741 that Leach employ his spare time in setting his decided cases back on the calendar and hearing the other side. Shadwell (1827-50) was an improvement upon his immediate predeces- sors ; but the most efficient assistance in chancery came with the appointment of Knight-Bruce (1841-51) and Wigram (1841-51) as additional vice-chancellors. At the same time the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer was taken away. Knight-Bruce was a judge of great capacity who afterwards distinguished himself as a lord justice of appeal in chancery. Wigram was profoundly learned in technical equity, and his opinions have always been held in high esteem for their lucid exposition of equitable principles. (h) Common Law Courts During the first quarter of the century the Court of King's Bench practically monopolized common law litigation. Lord Ellenborough, the chief justice of this court at the beginning of the century (1802-18), was unquestionably the ablest judge among Lord Mansfield's immediate successors. He was a man of more general force than his predecessor, Kenyon, and his store of practical knowledge was quite as large. Although a judge of unquestioned integrity, he was nevertheless in many ways a reactionist. His strong political and religious opinions, which often influenced his judgment in criminal causes, savored of the past, and he sturdily opposed the rapidly rising sentiment for reform. In ordi- nary civil litigation, however, he gave great satisfaction, and his clear and concise opinions are still held in high esteem. He served at a time when the Napoleonic wars gave rise to novel and intricate problems in commercial law, and the skill and judgment with which he determined these questions may be studied to advantage in Campbell's nisi prius reports.^ •
- See also Higham v. Ridgeway, 1 East. 109; Elwes v. Mawe, 3 do.
98; Wain v. Warlters, 5 do. 10; Vicars v. Wilcocks, 8 do. 1; Godsall ©. Boldero, 9 do. 72; Horn v. Baker, 9 do. 215; Disbury v. Thomas, 14 do. 323; Roe d. Earl of Berkeley v. Archbishop of York, 6 do. 101; Erie V. Rowcroft, 8 do. 133; Tanner v. Smart, 6 Barn. & Cress, 604. His political prepossessions may be studied in the numerous state prosecutions over which he presided, reported in the collection of
