744 V. BENCH AND BAR (1824-41), a learned but scholastic lawyer, held over from earlier time, and Parke (1828-34) spent 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 last of the great school of special pleaders ; but he was besides a man of broad and practical views, and made an admirable judge. He sat in the Queen's Bench twenty- three years, the trusted colleague of three chief justices.^ 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 marks the legal mind; and, although his mind lacked flexi- bility and subtlety, and he was extremely tenacious of his own views, the common sense which generally characterized his work made him a safe judge.^ But the ablest associate throughout the period was Patteson (1830-52). He sat in this court twenty-one years ; he was the strongest man in the court, and largely influenced its action. It was due mainly to his vigorous intellect and great learning that the court was able to maintain its standing during this period, in the face of the rapidly increasing reputation of the Exchequer.^ Coleridge (1835-58) was a very competent lawyer and a man of scholarly attainments. His opinions are among the most finished to be found in the earlier reports.^ His opinion in the case of Lumley v. Gye, upon the
- CIift V. Schwabe, 17, L. J., C. P., 2; Howard v. Gossett, 14 L. J.
Q. B., 373; Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. I.. Cas. 360; JeflF reys r. Boosey,4 do, 842; Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216. •Kennedy v. 'Brown, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 677; lonides v. Universal Marine Association, 14 do. 259; R. v. Rowlands, 5 Cox Cr. Cas. 406; R. V. Rowton, 10 do. 25; Thompson v. Hopper, 25 L. J., Q. B., 240; Wheelton v. Hardisty, 26 do. 265; Ricket v. Metropolitan Ry. 34 do. 257; Ex parte Fernandez, 30 L. J., C. P. 321; Brand v. Hammer- smith Ry. 36 L. J., Q. B. 139; Gibson v. Small, 4 H. L. Cas. 352; JeflFrevsu. Boosey, 4 do. 842; Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216; Kay v. Wheeler, L. R. 2 C. P. 302. » R. V. O'Connell, 11 CI. & F. 155; Startup v. Macdonald, 12 L. J., Ex. 477; Clift V. Schwabe, 17 L. J., C. P. 2; East Counties Ry. v. Broom, 20 L. J., Ex. 196; Wright v. Tatham, 5 CI. & F. 670; R. v. Rowlands, 5 Cox Cr. Cas. 406. • Some of his best efforts are Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216; Mennie «. Blake, 225, L. J., Q. B. 399; Blackmore v. B. & E. Ry. Co., 27 do.
