1. The decision of this case turns on the construction we are to place on the terms 'silks in a manufactured state and whether wrought up or not wrought up with any other materials.' We are unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge that these terms were intended to apply to all classes of goods in which silk may be introduced; yet it is difficult to arrive at any precise definition of the terms. Mr. Shaw has called our attention to the case of Brunt v. The Midland Railway Company 2 H. & C. 889 in which a web known in the trade as silk web having a silk face and composed in the proportion of 1oz. of silk to 1 1/4oz. of India-rubber and 3/4 oz. of cotton with relative values of 12d or 13 1/2d (silk) to 7 1/2d (India-rubber) and 31 /4d (cotton) was held to be silk within the meaning of the Act. With the exception of articles 2, 3, 12b, and 16 not one of the pieces of goods produced in this case has a silk face. But there are several in which the silk forms the most expensive part of the material employed. The proportionate costs of cotton to silk appear to be one to four and-a-half. Where there is a larger value of silk than cotton estimated at these rates, we consider the article may fairly be held to fall within the description 'silks,' etc., in the schedule to the Act. Allowing 19 rupees the value of goods No. 4 (one-eighth silk, seven-eighths cotton thread) in addition to the sum allowed by the Subordinate Judge, we see no reason to interfere further with the decree.
2. The parties respectively will pay and receive proportionate costs of this application.