of Fish OIL 285 



fendants. Now, how did they attempt to prove it? What was 

 the evidence of Mr, Garden — a most intelhgent man, and whom 

 every body knew to be so ? He considered it a matter of con- 

 jecture (the difference between the two modes); but he added, 

 that, if he were to form an opinion, he should think the new 

 process the more dangerous of the two. Was this the kind of 

 evidence which should satisfy the minds of the jury that the risk 

 had been increased, and that the fire had been caused by it? It 

 was not necessary for him to go in detail through all the parts of 

 the evidence. He would look at the plaintiffs' case only in its 

 principal points. The first men in Europe and the world in their 

 profession had stated that they considered the process adopted 

 by the plaintiffs as less dangerous than the former one. It was 

 true that this was met and contradicted on the other side by wit- 

 nesses highly respectable ; but what had the most respectable 

 and intelligent of them said ? That, only for the experiments 

 made, they would have conceived the new process as less ha- 

 zardous than the other. The learned gentleman then proceeded 

 to contend that the old plan was attended with more danger than 

 the other, and cited as a proof the means which were resorted 

 to by several to refine sugar without running the risk of its boil- 

 ing over — a risk to which the old plan was constantly exposed. 

 Mr. Martineau, for this purpose, had recourse to steam, and, in 

 order to raise the sugar to tlie required temperature, was obliged 

 to use the high -pressure steam-engine — an engine which was 

 confessedly attended with very considerable risk. It had been 

 also attempted to prevent the boiling over, by one of the greatest 

 chemists of this country, Mr. Howard, who had suggested the 

 boiling in vacuo ; and at the present moment the defendant* were 

 proprietors of a patent for preventing this danger. 



Mr. Sergeant Blosset here interrupted the Solicitor-general^ 

 and begged to state that he was mistaken ; the defendants had 

 nothing of the kind; they were not concerned in any sugar-ma- 

 nufactory. 



The Solicitor-general continued. He had made a mistake ; 

 but it was one for which the jury would forgive him. He had 

 fiillen into it from confounding the present defendants with the 

 defendants in another case. Now, mi order to infer the greater 

 risk from the use of oil, what had been said ? That oil produced 

 an inflammable gas which was extremely dangerous. What had 

 his witnesses said on this point ? That they used common whale- 

 oil, and that it produced no gas under a temperature of 5(J() or 

 flOO. It was said that he had got gas from oil at a temperature 

 of 40<), but then that was from oil which had for nineteen months 

 been at several times exposed to heat. Others of the witnesses 



had 



