of Fish Oil. 269 



fasioned by the great professional labour to which he had lately 

 been subjected in other places. This was in itself an important 

 cause, and its importance was increased by its being one in con- 

 sidering which it was extremely difficult to divest one's self of 

 that natural wish which every well -constituted mind was likely 

 to cherish for the success of a suffering party. He agreed with 

 his learned friend the Solicitor-general, that the plaintiffs were 

 gentlemen of great respectability; and it was far from his inten- 

 tion to impute to them any fraud, or even blame. But that cir- 

 cumstance gave additional importance to a question such as the 

 present, because, when a decision was made which was founded 

 on the principles of law and justice, in opposition to the natural 

 wishes of the lieait, it exhibited the triumph of justice over par- 

 tiality. The defendants also were gentlemen of great respecta- 

 bility, and had no wish to be exempted from any responsibility 

 to which in justice they were liable ; there were claims on them', 

 however, as a society, which they were bound by the ties of ho- 

 nour rigorously to discharge. It would evidently be futile for 

 societies to establish rules respecting insurance against fire, if 

 whenever a case occurred these rules were to be opposed as con- 

 trary to the claims of justice. He should follow the example of 

 his learned friend in endeavouring to disembarrass the question of 

 technical forms. The points for the consideration of the jury 

 resolved themselves substantially into three questions ; and, how- 

 ever widely the matter might be scattered over the record, they 

 would find that on one or all of these grounds the defendants 

 were entitled to their verdict. The first question related to the 

 description of the premises — a point which had hardly been 

 touched upon as yet ; and he affirmed that the premises insured 

 had not been properly described. The second question was, 

 whether the fire had been caused by the introduction of a new 

 process, which required the boilingof oil. And the third was, 

 whether this new process increased the rid< ; which question, 

 though it might he illustrated by the precedmg one, was not ne- 

 ressarily connected with it. On the first of these points, he 

 presumed that in this place, and before his evidence, he need 

 not state that a description of premises incorporated their con- 

 nexion with other buildings. The Solicitor-general had referred 

 to the Budding: Act; but by that act no communication was al- 

 lowed between a building of this description and a dwelling-house; 

 and to a warehouse a communication was allowed only by an iron 

 door. In every policy effected on buildings of this kind, it was 

 unquestionably the duty of the persons executing it to state in 

 what maimer premises insured communicated with other build- 

 ings. The jury would bear in mind that the premises of the 

 plaintiffs comprised three houses — the long-house, thegrindiug- 



house. 



