JUDGMENT 1. This case is not distinguishable from the case of Norang Rai Agorwalla v. River Steam Navigation Company 11 C. W. N. 1071 (1907). decided by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brett on the 6th March last. The Plaintiffs consigned a parcel containing silk articles through the Defendant, India General Steam Navigation and Railway Co., Ld. They did not declare the value of the articles nor disclose the contents of the parcel. The articles were accepted according to the rules of the company. The Plaintiffs knew perfectly well the articles consigned by them had to be carried in the first instance by the Defendant Company, then by the Eastern Bengal State Railway and then by the East Indian Ry. Co. to the final destination at Khagra where delivery was to be given. 2. The Defendant has succeeded in proving that there was no negligence or criminal act within the meaning of sec. 8 of the Carriers' Act, on its part, or that of its servants, &c., making the company directly liable. 3. The argument before us is that the Railway Companies having been the agents of the Defendant Company and the loss having occurred in transmission after delivery was made to the Eastern Bengal State Railway, the Defendant Company is liable for the loss. 4. The answer to this question depends upon the consideration of the very same question which arose in the case decided by Mr. Justice Brett, whether the Railway Companies should be considered agents of the Defendant Company. The Plaintiffs knew that the articles could not be carried by the Steam Navigation Company throughout; the Railway Companies must carry them; and it was well understood that the agreement was in substance with both the Defendant Company and the Railway Companies. The Railway Companies are absolved from liability under the provisions of sec. 75 of the Indian Railways Act. 5. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no ground for our interference with the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge. We accordingly discharge the rule with costs: 5 gold mohurs.