126 INSURANCE OF FISHING-BOATS. 



from liability in the matter. This, I think, is an unwise 

 as well as an unfair regulation. Small repairs will, of 

 course, be required from time to time, but common sense 

 will enable any one to determine what is the result of 

 ordinary wear and tear, and what is the result of excep- 

 tional damage. If, in order to avoid petty disputes, such 

 a rule be considered absolutely necessary, then the amount 

 should be fixed at a low sum, because, however immoral it 

 may be, it is only natural for an owner, when his vessel has 

 sustained damage, to wish that the damage may amount 

 to the sum at which the underwriters will recognise it, and 

 in consequence he will not scrutinise closely the bills of the 

 tradesmen which, when added together, will more than 

 cover the exempted amount. The rule, moreover, is bad 

 for this reason, that when the damage amounts to more 

 than the sum fixed to be exempted, the underwriter pays 

 upon the whole amount without deducting anything for 

 partial exemption. 



No deduction should be made for " New for Old!' It is 

 a special feature of the system I advocate, that no deduc- 

 tion whatever is made for what is known to underwriters as 

 " new for old." The ordinary underwriting rule is that, 

 whatever may be the amount of damage which the under- 

 writer has undertaken to pay, he shall be permitted to 

 deduct therefrom one-third, because, in repairing the 

 damage, new materials have been, or are supposed to have 

 been, used. This, in ordinary underwriting parlance, is 

 known as deducting "new for old." The rule itself is a 

 venerable one, and, until recently, was universal. Re- 

 pugnant as it is to justice and common sense, it is difficult 

 to imagine on what grounds it was first adopted, and why 

 it has not long since been relegated to the limbo of 

 monstrosities and antiquated absurdities. The principal 



