1. The Judge finds that there was theft of some ghee by the servants of the Railway Company, but that the case is covered by the risk-note as there was no loss of any complete package.
2. It does prima facie seem to be hard that the Railway Company can avoid responsibility in such a case by producing the empty tins. But this has been so held already by this Court, and the word 'package' seems to mean both that which is packed and that in which it is packed, its covering or receptacle.
3. Then it is said that if that be so the risk-note in this respect is contrary to public policy. The previous cases, however, decided this point to the contrary and nonetheless so because the risk-note which was discussed in those cases is not now in force, for, the risk-note now in use is not so wide as the risk-note before the 9th March 1907. If the former risk-note was held not to be against public policy, a fortiori, the present risk-note is not. Moreover, in the case of the William Dring v. Shiv Prosad Bhakat 18 Ind. Cas. 216 : 17 C.W.N. 529 in which the risk-note was exactly in the same form as that now before us, the learned Judges say this: 'It was suggested by the learned Pleader that the contract embodied in the risk-note was contrary to public policy. This question has also been considered in more than one case and decided in favour of the Railway Company. It may be pointed out that the risk-note in its present form is not so wide as it previously was.' The contention as regards notice also fails. We think that the Rule fails.
4. The Rule is, therefore, discharged.
5. We make no order as to costs.