nucleus of the work, have received the special attention of the author.'

The matters above adverted to may naturally enough be ranged under the general denomination of intrinsic causes for vacating verdicts. A verdict, however, may be rendered, free from all these exceptions, and still, justice may not be done. Facts may be afterwards disclosed which may have escaped the vigilance of the suitor, and which, if brought in proper season under the consideration of the jury, would have led to a different result. Such matters, which may range themselves under the head of extrinsic causes, require equally the interference of the court, but demand the exercise of the greatest caution. The nicely balanced rules of the law, to enable the suitor, on the one hand, to make a legitimate use of such newly discovered testimony, and to protect his opponent from a mere litigious spirit and a tampering with witnesses, on the other, are met in order, discussed by Mr. Graham, and the rules, so far as they are now established, clearly set forth.

These matters would naturally conclude the subject of Mr. Graham's work. He has, however, with great propriety, and to the manifest advantage of the reader, brought under review, in his three remaining chapters, several matters of an anomalous character, which could not have been considered before without violating the method and order into which his subject naturally distributed itself. These chapters treat, 1, of the peculiar rules laid down by the courts to suppress litigation and to control that zcal and anxiety for successive trials which suitors too often manifest, and often too in the inverse ratio of the importance of the cause; 2, of the special control exercised by the court over verdicts in hard actions; 3, of the limitations the courts impose upon themselves where repeated verdicts are returned on matters of fact, falling particularly within the province of the jury; 4, of new trials in equity on verdicts returned on feigned issues sent down to courts of law.3

The work is then closed with the consideration of a matter partly fixed, and partly of a discretionary character, viz. The terms on which verdicts are set aside and new trials granted. The rules on this subject, so far as rules exist, are here also plainly and clearly extracted from the cases and placed in order before the reader.

Upon the whole we congratulate the New York Bar on the

1 C. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

2 C. 13.

3 C. 14, 15, 16.

appearance of this work, and trust that the example so creditably set them by their associate, will be the means of inducing others of that learned body to a speedy discharge of the debt which every man owes to his profession.

Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of By DANIEL CALL. Vols. 4, 5 & 6. 8vo. Rich

Virginia. mond.

1833.

We were already indebted to Mr. Call for three volumes of Reports of Cases in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, from 1797 to 1802, before the appearance of the present volumes. These, which are now before us, contain reports of cases decided in the Court of Appeals, from 1779 to 1818, besides five cases in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Virginia. They are printed on good paper and with good type, and are bound to match the three previous volumes. Our curiosity has been excited by several circumstances about them. There is a reporter's preface and an editor's preface—the last, though short, being written in a style inferior, in point of accuracy, to that of a bookseller's advertisement. The editor says: 'There is no printed report of the decisions of the first Court of Appeals, and of those which have been omitted by reporters from that period to the death of Mr. Pendleton, although such a work is obviously wanted.' The title-page of these volumes bears the date 1833. The reporter's preface and dedication of the first volume are dated May 1st, 1827. This dedication is addressed to the Honorable St. George Tucker, well known as the Professor of Law, and commentator upon Blackstone. The same volume which is dedicated to him, contains a notice of his death and a sketch of his life and character, written after the date of the dedication.

Of the judges, whose decisions are reported, are some names familiar to the whole country, and among the foremost in the full Virginian school of talent and patriotism. These reports will be interesting to all, but particularly to Virginians, for collecting and preserving the legal labors of men so distinguished, thus presenting us authentic materials for forming an estimate of these leading minds. Mr. Call has increased our debt by furnishing short biographical notices of these different judges.

As it is probable but few of our readers will see these volumes, we shall abstract from them the principal dates and events which these notices contain.

At the head of the list is Edmund Pendleton. He was for a long time one of the leading members of the house of burgesses of Virginia, and in 1773 was appointed one of the committee of correspondence for gaining intelligence of the acts of the British government and communicating with the colonies. He was a member of the congress of 1774,-was appointed the first judge of the high court of chancery soon after it was established and qualified in 1779, and in consequence thereof was ex officio presiding judge of the first court of appeals until its dissolution in 1789. In the same year he was made presiding judge of the new court of appeals, and held that situation, with the approbation of all parties, until his death. In 1789 he was appointed judge of the United States District Court of Virginia, but declined the appointment. He appears to have been a man of fine natural endowments, but of defective education. He had never learned the languages. He was industrious and methodical in business, possessed quick perceptions, clear discernment, practical views, great argumentative powers and a sound judgment.

George Wythe was born in the county of Elizabeth City, in 1726. His mother taught him the Latin language. In other respects his education is said to, have been defective. The death of both his parents before he came of age, and the uncontrolled possession of a large fortune, led him, for some time, into a course of amusement and dissipation. At the age of thirty, however, his conduct underwent an entire change. His great reputation and literary attainments made Mr. Jefferson, at leaving William and Mary College, desirous of studying law under his direction, which desire was effected. In 1775 he was appointed a delegate to the Continental Congress. In the following year he was appointed, in connexion with Mr. Jefferson and others, to revise the laws of Virginia. He was soon after appointed one of the three judges of the high court of chancery and afterwards sole chancellor, in which station he continued till his death, which took place in 1806. In 1781 he was appointed professor of law in the college of William and Mary, which post he held till 1789. In 1795 he published a work under the title of Chancery Decisions in order to review particular sentences of the Court of Appeals, reversing some decrees made by himself. Mr. Call says that the book is

written in a stiff and affected style, but is very caustic and animadverts with great asperity, upon the judgments of the Court of Appeals. We believe that this book is now out of print. Chancellor Wythe is said to have possessed clear discernment, great powers of investigation and deep learning.

Robert Carter Nicholas was a gentleman of family and fortune. He was bred to the law and practised with reputation in the General Court, under the royal government. He took no part in opposition to the mother country, until the convention of 1775, but from that period he was an ardent friend to the Revolution. In 1779 he was appointed one of the judges of the High Court of Chancery, whereby he became ex officio a judge of the first Court of Appeals. He was a good lawyer and a man of integrity and sound understanding; but as he died in 1780, his judicial character had not developed itself.

Judge Blair was a gentleman of fortune and powerful family connexions. He studied at the Temple in London. In 1776 he was elected a member of the house of burgesses and was one of the committee of the convention of 1776 which drew up the plan of government for the state. In 1779 he was made Chief Justice of the General Court, and upon the death of Judge Nicholas, in 1780, he was appointed a judge of the High Court of Chancery; and by virtue of both stations, was a judge of the first Court of Appeals. In 1787 he was one of the convention which framed the federal constitution. In 1789 he was made a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, but resigned the office in a few years afterwards. He died at Williamsburg, in 1800, in his 69th year.

Paul Carrington the elder, in all early political struggles, took a decided part with the colonies. In 1779 he was appointed second judge of the general court, whereby he became a judge of the first court of appeals; and upon the translation of Mr. Blair to the high court of chancery in 1780, he became chief justice of the general court. In 1789, he was appointed a judge of the new court of appeals, consisting of five judges. From conscientious motives, he resigned his office in 1807, at the age of 75; though his faculties were still unimpaired, through fear, as Mr. Call states, that he might be found lingering on the bench, after the increase of years had rendered him unable to perform the duties of his station. He died at the advanced age of 93.

Peter Lyons was a native of Ireland, who migrated to Virginia, and in the contest with Great Britain took part with the

colonies. In 1779, he was made third judge of the general court. In 1789, he was appointed a judge of the new court of appeals, and continued so until his death. He had a sound understanding, and was deeply read in the law. His judgments were highly respected.

William Fleming, Bartholomew Dandridge, and James Mercer, took part with the colonies in their disputes with the mother country, and were made judges of the general court in 1779. In 1789, Fleming and Mercer were appointed judges of the new court of appeals, which station they held the rest of their lives.

Benjamin Waller performed for some time the duties of clerk of the general court. He took side with the colonies, and in 1777, was made presiding judge of the court of admiralty and consequently one of the judges of the first court of appeals. Mr. Call says, he presided with great dignity in the court of admiralty and decided the causes very properly; but gave no reasons for his judgment.

Willam Roscow Wilson Curl took part with the colonies against the mother country, and was made a judge of the court of admiralty in 1777. As he died shortly after, his judicial character is little known.

Richard Carey, like all his brethren, whose lives we have noticed, was a friend to the Revolution. In 1777, he was appointed a judge of the court of admiralty, and succeeded Mr. Waller as presiding judge. Upon the establishment of the court of appeals in 1789, he was made a judge of the general court and continued so until his death.

James Henry was a native of Scotland, but migrated at a very early age to Philadelphia, where he studied law, and afterwards settled on the eastern shore of Virginia. He took part with his adopted country during the revolution. In 1779 he was appointed a judge of the court of admiralty; and in 1789 he was made a judge of the general court, which office he held for many years and then resigned. His decisions were argumentative, learned and convincing.

John Tyler studied law with Judge Nicholas. In 1786 he was appointed a judge of the court of admiralty, and in 1789 of the general court. In 1808 he was made governor, and in 1811 judge of the district court of the United States for Virginia, which office he held until his death. Mr. Call, in sketching his character, says with great simplicity, 'he disliked lawbooks, and particularly those of England; but was fond of light