JUDGMENT

1. These three connected appeals have been heard together. They relate to claims by different plaintiffs against the G.I.P. Railway Company. In this judgment we refer in particular to the facts of the Second Appeal (No. 1225 of 1922), but the facts of the others are admittedly ON all fours with them and the points for decision are the same.

2. On 26th November 1920 a bale of cloth was delivered to the G.I.P. Railway Company at Victoria Terminus, Bombay, for despatch to Railway Station Yusufpur on the B. and N.W. Railway. The goods were never delivered. It is also admitted that they never reached the B. and N.W. Railway. A Risk Note in form B. was executed in respect of this consignment by one Hari Gobind whom the learned District Judge finds to be the person who delivered the goods to the Railway Company. The learned Judge finds that the loss of the goods was due to theft from a running train, that the guard of the train knew that the theft was being committed but that he is not shown to have been negligent in not stopping the train in order to prevent the theft or recover the goods.

3. The two questions which have been argued before us are:

1. Whether the Risk Note was valid