Richard Garth, C.J.
1. We think that the judgment of the Court below is correct. It is satisfactory to have seen the original contract, because it seems clear that the printed words in the margin 'now in course of landing, &c.;,' were merely the common form generally used by the plaintiffs' firm, and were not intended to constitute any part of this particular contract. The argument, therefore, which was addressed to us upon those words entirely fails.
2. We think that the questions referred to us should be answered as follows:
The first and fourth questions should be answered' in the affirmative. The second question of course, does not arise; and as to the third, we do not see that the Nagri writing is at all inconsistent with the English contract.
3. The defendants must pay the costs of this reference.