On whales and fish. Two models of interpretation

Abstract

Maurice v. Judd, a case tried by jury in 1818, concerns the demand of fees by fish oil inspector James Maurice for the inspection of some barrels of whale oil. Although the defence and several experts argued that whale oil is not fish oil, simply because whales are not fish, the jury sided with the inspector in a verdict that to most was shocking, back then as much as nowadays. Historians, philosophers and lawyers have discussed the case. Some (Phillips 2014, Asgeirsson 2016) have argued that the jury's verdict should not be puzzling at all once the case is properly analysed whereas others have considered that the case raises interesting questions (Burnett 2007, Sainsbury 2014. At any rate, Maurice v. Judd has generated a good deal of discussion lately. We think that there are good reasons for the attention the case has received, for there is a tension in the way the case and the verdict is perceived: both the conclusion that the jury were right tout court and the conclusion that they were wrong tout court are not satisfactory.