ALBION LEAD W0BE8 V. WIUiUUSBUBa OITT T. INS. 00. 487 �that if there is a single change, stich as a new use of ib« building, or an alteration in them, the jury are to say whether, npon the -whole, the risk is greater or less. If, however, there are two or more changes, unconnected with eaoh other, and one has increased the risk, it is no answer to the plea of for- feiture to say that something else has diminished it. Curry v. Com.Im.Co. 10 Pick. 586. �In that case numerous witnesses testiûed that an enlarge- ment of the insured dvelling-house, and a contemporaneous removal of the uninsured barn to a greater distance from the house, did not inorease the risk, and the verdict for the plaintiflf •was sustained. See, also, Jone» Mfg. Co. t. Mfrs.' Ins. Co. 8 Cush. 82, and Date v. Gcme Dist. Mut. Co. 15 U. C. (C. P.) 175, as to single and contemporaneous changes ; and, as to others, Heneker v. Brit. Am. Assn. 13 U. C. (C. P.) 99, and Loma» V. Brit. Am. Assn. 22 U. C. (213) 310. Within this rule it was proper for the jury to inquire whether stopping the mill was, upon the whole, considering the decrease of risk from accidentai fires, and the increase from the discharge of the watchman.and want of power for the pump, such a change in the use or occupation of the premises as to increase the risk. �There is another question which has impressed me more forcibly during and since the argument of the motion than it did at the trial. The steam-chest of the pump was broken some weeks before the mill was stopped, and was not re- paired. It is a fair question whether any one in authority at the plaintiff's works was informed of this faot; but it is clearly a matter "within the control of the assured," and, therefore, if the neglect to repair the pump was an increase of the risk within this covenant, that part of the case should bave been left to the jury by itself, and not as part of the general change of use and occupation which took place after- wards. �I am of opinion, upon consideration of this condition, and construing it with the context, that it does not refer to mare negligence of the assured, however gross, or however it may increase the risk ; but to some permanent change, purposely ����
