2§4 On the Volatility and Injiammalility 



The Solicitor-general now rose to reply. The present case he 

 considered as one of vast importance, not only to his clients, but 

 to the public at large. It must indeed be a most grievous dis- 

 appointment to them, after all the pains they had taken to pre- 

 serve their property, after having paid a premium for insurance 

 three times more than was usually given for doubly hazardous 

 insurance, to have now to pay for that which they imagined they 

 had so well secured. RiU, however grievous the disappointment 

 and loss might be, if there was any point of law against them, 

 if there was any .just ground why they should not recover the 

 amount claimed, the jury sljould give a verdict against them. 

 This, however, must not be founded on any vague speculation, 

 nor on conflicting testimony. The grounds of their verdict should 

 be distinct, and wholly removed from any thing like doubt. Let 

 the jurv now look at the case. It appeared that before the plain- 

 tiffs had adopted the new process, tliey had three fires in the 

 same room, where afterwards they used only one. They very 

 naturally conceived (and that such was the fact he would show) 

 that that diminished the hazard. Their conduct subsequently 

 proved that such was their belief; for was it to be supposed that 

 in an establishment where a capital exceeding 100,000/. had 

 been invested, and only a part of it insured, that they would 

 have risked an uninsured property of 30,000/. or 40,000/. by any 

 plan which thev knew to be more hazardous ? His learned friend 

 had said that the plaiutiffs had not given in the policy a proper 

 description of the jjlace insured. To this he answered, that it 

 was well known to the defendants that only a part of the premises 

 were insured, and that such part had a communication with other 

 parts of the building. But before he came to the other points, 

 he would say a word as to the necessity of giving a description 

 of the place near to that insured. He contended, that even if 

 this process was carried on in the part insured, it would not be 

 necessary to give a description of it, unless the risk was there- 

 by increased. But how had the defendants themselves thought 

 of this increased risk ? Let the jury look to what occurred with 

 respect to Mr. Harris of Liverpool. He had applied to the de- 

 fendants for leave to use oil and tallow in his process, and they 

 endorsed their compliance on the back of the policy without 

 charging any additional premium. Was that the conduct of 

 men u'ho conceived the hazard increased by the deviation froni 

 the old process ? So much for what had been thrown out re- 

 specting the policy. But it was maintained that this new pro- 

 cess increased the risk, and caused the fire. But in order to get 

 a verdict on this ground, the fact should be distinctly ]>roved, so 

 as not to adniit of a doubt. The onus of proof lay upon the de- 

 fendants. 



