so. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 797 length " and slipshod style of his judgments. He was ami- able and exceedingly religious. " The monotony of his character," said Westbury, " was unrelieved by a single fault." 1 Sir John Romilly (1851-'73) presided over the Rolls Court during this period, when the work of the court was rapidly increasing. His numerous decisions display indus- try rather than breadth and grasp. His haste in disposing of cases led him sometimes to decide without sufficiently con- sidering the principles involved and the precedents by which they were governed, and he was often reversed on appeal. Vice chancellors of various degrees of ability served during this period. Upon the promotion of Knight-Bruce in 1851, and of Turner in 1853, to the Court of Appeals in Chan- cery, and of Rolfe, in 1851 to the woolsack, the office was held during the next fifteen years by Kindersley (1851-'66), Stuart (1852-'71) and Page-Wood (1853-'68). Kinders- ley was a sound equity lawyer, whose decisions were seldom reversed. His opinions are, as a rule, based upon broad principles, and bear the impress of a superior mind. Stuart was the weakest of the later vice chancellors, and was gen- erally reversed on appeal. A witty barrister once placed an appeal from his decision on the calendar of motions of course. Page-Wood was one of the most competent and satisfactory judges holding this office. It was as vice chancellor that he laid the basis of the reputation in equity which led to his appointment as chancellor. The principal vice chancellors in later times were Malins (1866-'81), and Bacon (1870-'86). Gifford (1868-'69) and James (1869- '70) spent a brief period in this court on their way to the Court of Appeal, and Hall (1873-'82) was not particularly distinguished. Malins, in spite of judicial peculiarities, was a ' Castrique v. Imrie, 4 E. &. I. App. 414; Barber v. Meyerstein, 4 do. 317; Aister v. Ferryman, 4 do. 521; Knox v. Gye, 5 do. 656; Daniel v. Metropolitan Ry., 5 do. 49; Overend v. Gurney, 5 do. 480; Rankin v. Potter, 6 do. 83; Bain v. Fothergill, 7 do. 170; Orr Ewing v. Colquhoun, 2 App. Cas. 839; Thorn v. Mayor of London, 1 do. 120; Rhodes v. For- wood, 1 do. 256; Bowes v. Shand, 2 do. 455; Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry., 2 do. 666; Rossiter v. Miller, 3 do. 1124; Kendall v. Hamilton, 4 do. 504; Sturla v. Freccia, 5 do. 623; Harrod v. Harrod, 1 K. & J. 4; Reade v. Lacy, 1 J. & H. 524.
