Crim.  Law,  537  and  note.  And  see  4  Bl.
Com.  Chit.  ed.  158,  note ;  Godson  on
Patents,  33.  Lord  Campbell,  who  was
not  an  admirer  of  Kenyon,  comments,  in
his  Lives  of  the  Chief  Justices  (iv.  84
et  seq.  of  Am.  ed.),  very  disparagingly

295


§529


THE   ACT  EEQUrBED.
[book  V.
of  forestalling,  engrossing,  or  regrating,  is,  of  course,  indictable
■with  us  if  the  acts  themselves  are.  But  it  may  be  so,  even
though  we  should  hold  that  these  are  not  common-law  offences  in
our  States.^


upon  this  case  and  Rex  v.  Waddington,
cited  to  the  last  section.  But  he  admits
that  the  doctrines  "  were  at  the  time
highly  popular,"  and  contributed  to  en-
hance Kenyon's  "  reputation  as  a  great
judge."  His  pages  are  very  racy  where
he  states  what  the  judges  held;  and,  if
they  really  laid  down  exactly  what  he
Bays  they  did,  we  may  doubt  whether

296


their  expositions  were  true  to  any  law
ever  prevailing  in  any  country.  And
still  we  should  be  at  liberty  to  agree  or
not  with  the  biographer  as  to  the  cause
which  he  assigns;  namely,  Kenyon's
lack  of  an  early  classical  and  general
education  in  the  schools.  Campbell  cites
no  authorities  against  these  cases.
1  See  Vol.  II.  Conspiracy.
CHAP.  XXXVm.]      PUBLIC  CONVENIENCE  AND  SAPETY.         §  531


CHAPTER  XXXVIII.
PROTECTION  TO  THE  PUBLIC   CONVENIENCE  AND  SAFETY.
