of Fish Oil. 255 



behind it. He understood also, that if any gas should escape 

 and mix with the air, it never coukl so escape in any proportion, 

 that by the contact of fire could produce either danger or ex*- 

 plosion. All this he stated on the authority of persons long fa- 

 miliar with experiments, and deeply versed in subjects of this na- 

 ture. It would perhaps be said that the nature of oil might be 

 changed by the renewed application of heat, and that when so 

 changed, it would emit gas at 300 degrees. This, however, he 

 had reason to believe was utterly false, and although the oil 

 might be rendered thicker, the reapplicaiion of heat would re- 

 store it to its former state. The fact also was, that it had no 

 communication with the external air. The retort had been re- 

 cently taken off and repiired ; and he might undertake to de- 

 monstrate that the risk was less than by the former method. 

 With regard to a pan that was still in use, and to which his 

 learned friend had just drawn his attention, it was enough to re- 

 mark, that it was a mere substitution for one used previously to 

 the insurance. As to the circumstances attending the fire, he 

 should but briefly advert to them, as they would appear in evi- 

 dence, clearly and satisfactorily, before them. After it was ex- 

 tinguished, as it was natural to imagine that some explosion 

 might have been the cause, the apparatus was inspected, and 

 the retort found without any rent or fissure in it, and with no 

 other mark than that impressed by the superincumbent weight 

 which had fallen upon it. A copper boiler was also found mehed ; 

 but it would be proved that the coals under it, and in a state of 

 ignition, gave a satisfactoy explanation of that circumstance. 

 This was the case which he should now proceed to substantiate 

 by evidence ; and, having so done, he was sure the jury would 

 feel satisfaction in securing to a gentleman who had paid so 

 large a premium, a full indemnification for the loss which had 

 been incurred. 



The Chief Justice asked, whether the process in question was 

 peculiar to the plaintiffs' sugar-house ? 



The Solicitor-general replied in the negative, and added, that; 

 the same insurance-office had underwritten several warehouses 

 of the same description. 



The policy having been put in, 



The Chief Justice remarked tha:, as he now understood the 

 case, five questions would arise: — 1. Did this process fall within 

 the risk contemplated by the insurance? — 2. Was the fire occa- 

 sioned by it?— 3. Were'the plaintiffs bound to give notice when 

 they introduced it ?— 4. Was the insurance void ?— And, 5. Did 

 the circumstance of this process being carried on closely adjoin- 

 ing to, but not actually upon, the premises that were insured, 

 create any difference in the preceding questions ? 



Oil 



