of Fish Oil. 277 



projected alteration. It was a considerable time, certainly above 

 twelve months previous to this, that he had examined the pre- 

 mises on behalf of the Phoenix Company. When Mr. Bishop 

 first mentioned that he was about to introduce a boiler, witness 

 did not conceive that any increased hazard would be incurred. 

 He did not, in fact, exercise any opinion upon the subject, nor 

 had he pointed out any particular spot as best adapted to the 

 purpose. Being employed by the plaintiffs in a private capacity, 

 he was in the habit of frequently visiting their premises. It was 

 at some time during the last spring that Mr. Bishop took him to a 

 door in the building which was not in the plan, when he observed, 

 " I have something to mention between ourselves — I want to put 

 something up here for a new proccos." Witness was then led to 

 an upper floor, where he was told that it was in contemplation 

 ~to erect a boiler, and was asked whether in his opinion it could 

 stand there. At first oil was not mentioned, but he understood, 

 before he went away, that the jjrojected boiler was for the heating 

 of oil. He did not form at that time any judgement with regard 

 to the probable risk that might attend it. The only observation 

 which he then made was, that a brick trimmer would be neces- 

 sary under the boiler. He should have thought that equally requi- 

 .^itc, had the boiler been for water. To him the subject presented 

 itself more as a question of curiosity, than of reflection or calcula- 

 tion as to the success of the measure. Had he been employed 

 by the Insurance Company to inspect the premises, and found 

 that an oil-boiler had been newly introduced, he should doubtless 

 have thought it his duty to conmiunicate that circumstance to 

 the office. He had no recollection of making a report at the 

 instance of the Phoenix Office in September 1818. This might 

 be owing to the frequency of his visits to the premises in ques- 

 tion. On the occasion to which he had before alluded he was 

 privately consulted by Mr. Bishop, and undertook not to reveal 

 what had been communicated to him. The morning after the 

 fire witness met him, and said, he was sorry to find what had 

 happened, but glad that one part of the building was safe. On 

 being asked for what reason, he replied, " Why, because there 

 you have been trying your new experiments." Mr. Bishop ex- 

 pressed himself in the negative; and in answer to a question 

 whether he had concealed the new process from his partners 

 as well as the office, he said they all knew it as well as him- 

 self. 



The Lord Chief Justice here remarked, that it was now ob- 

 vious why the defendant's counsel had preferred calling Mr. 

 Lockcy's clerk rather than himself. It arose from a motive of 

 delicacy, and a reluctance to draw forth a disclosure of what had 

 been mentioned in confidence. 



In 



