citing precedents of the English and American courts for several centuries to show that the action was legal. A very noticeable case was what is known in the legal history of Cleveland as "The Bridge Case," in which Charles Avery sued the city of Cleveland, to prevent the construction of a bridge across the Cuyahoga, at the foot of Lighthouse street. The questions arising were: the legislative authority of the city to bridge the river, and whether the bridge would be a nuisance, damaging the complainant's private property. The decision of Judge Willson, granting a preliminary injunction until further evidence could be taken, was a thorough review of the law relating to water highways and their obstructions. In the opinion on the Parker water-wheel case, he exhibited a clear knowledge of mechanics, and gave an exhaustive exposition of the law of patents. In the case of Hoag _vs_ the propeller Cataract, the law of collision was set forth and numerous precedents cited. In 1860, important decisions were given in respect to the extent of United States jurisdiction on the Western lakes and rivers. It was decided, and the decisions supported by voluminous precedents, that the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts of the United States, on the Western lakes and rivers, under the Constitution and Act of 1789, was independent of the Act of 1845, and unaffected thereby; and also that the District Courts of the United States, having under the Constitution and Acts of Congress, exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the Courts of Common Law are precluded from proceeding _in rem_ to enforce such maritime claims. These are but a very few of the many important cases coming before Judge Willson's court and decided by him in a manner that made his decisions important precedents.