Star. — London, England, 1817-05-23 00:00:00

LAW MiLLIGENCE. DEANERY OF 51' PAUL'd, DOC I'OR'S COMMONS. TM's• as a suit et Divorce instituted by William An nous Dolaby it, Esq. lateCap:aiti in his Majesty's Fifth Dragoons, g.iiiist Maria rhillippa Dobbyn his wift, for adultery. The i.fficlavits read were to the fallowing effect : Mrs. Buil, at whose houae Dobbytt came to lodse in ISIS, (after her husband :5 coiittiog her to j i;n hie regiment in Spain), deposed, that at Nu. 11, :it. James's-place, Hampstead.road, she hit her first llocr, c insisting of one sitting, one bed.room. and a room for • savant and child, to the articulate Mrs. Dobbyn, party in the carte ; that shortly after she came there she was visited by a' Mr. MrCielland, a man of colour, with whom she would frequently be for hours together so the tatting mom, the door of which was made fast, and the witidoveshurrers closed. She called Mr. WClell sad her 6 6 dear Cohn," and he called her his e. dear Maria.'' When Mr. M•Clelland was a prisoner for debt in the Kung's Bench, she want to see him, and was absent for two days, c rn lessing she had been with him. He was seen by de ponent sitting with I.er on the sopha, with his arm round her neck, his head leaning on her shoalder, and r arm round his neck. The deponent remonstrated J I " how shucking such conduct in a married woman," Mrs. Dobbyn made answer " ir .vias impossible she could eve without the emptily of gentlemen, and if. her husband did not like it he should re main with her." An old gentleman ot the name of Twiss visited her. she received him in her stays.and flanitel ()mi. coat. Deponent detected them .n the b:d.room to gether, she lacing her stays whilst this gentleman, SO years of age, st..oel by her bed-side. She was also visited by the son and n= phew of Mr. Twiss, one of whom was seen to kiss her, and used to roll upon the sofa with her. The old gentleman desired her child ziiight be sent out of the room, saying he 6 , would rather have twenty muukies than one child." Strange men also visited her, and with all of whom deponent %rally believed adulterous intercourse took plaice.— Her husband left her £l5O per annum, in the hands of Messrs. Coutts and Co. which was paid monthly. Deponent's house. was threatened to be indicted on account of Mr.. Dobbyn's conduct. She took away the furniture, and by that means Mrs. Dobbyn quit. ted her lodgings. SnpSna Duhurst, daughter of Mrs. lint!, like. wise proved certain facts, in continuation of her Ana. thee. testimony. It. appeared, however, after the discovery was made to the husband, that he treated this story with contempt, and did afterwards cohabit Inds his wife. ik. Lostntiorim contended, that the 'adultery was not proved, because the affidavits ot Mrs. Bull and her daughter were totally unworthy of. credit, since. by her . own account, she was the pander of Mrs. Lobby ~ by suffering Such conduct in her house, Mad. must have been, if true, no better than a bro. thrl. It the adultery was proved, then the husband had red himself of his remedy sitter the facts were communicated to him, by, his afterwards visiting and passing the night with his wile.—Judgment deferred. COußt 07 KING'S BENCH, MAY tr. WARM= 4. HOLSINA AND watt. _ An action fur slanders the defendants pleaded thar they had not spoken the words charged. On the statement of Mr. Oonsee it appeared, that the pla ntiff is a lady, having a house in ?alace-y.rd and is)] next dour to a public-boun kept by deft 'Wants t she had been twice married, first to a Mr. Windsor, by whom she bad had several daugh ters, who had been brought up and married most respectably. 'The defendants bad held some land of the plaintiff. and as long as they continued her • tenants, they behaved with great civility. ; but alter she hied occasion.to relieve them they pursued a systenrof defamatory-hostility. which it was necessary to put a toot to by the present action. The slander now c in. Vof was the following " Where is old Mother orl e tor, who misted and robbed so many girls— Whesois old Mother Windsor. that old b••s-d LOrd Et.monsortouoit asked, is there any lusordo on the record I .There ought to be some words to es plain, how it was a slander to call a woman " Old soother Windsor.." cis it stood at present, the words did not appear to apply to the plaintiff I they only stated that " Old mother Windsor" was a woman of ascertain destriptioo, not that the plaintiff was so. Mr. Gowan replied. that there was an iniendo on the record. but not to the effect, required by his Lord ship. It w. old be very hard it this obj ect i on were to prevail, as until the delendains had commenced their defamations, not i syllable had been whispered illigainc the reputation of Mrs. • B irthulet. Turn a dog into the street, and exclaini that he was mad, and he would be certain to meet his deaths and to till a Lady " Old mother Windsor" was to pima her out as an object of disgust and detestation to all the respectable part of society. Ey.eNsintotioli held that a farther issuracto was necessary, and without it the record was good for nothing.— Leave given'to amend the record. sattsiiAU w. . o'exit.er. This was an action by a civil engineer against Co- lonel O'Kebey, to recover a compensation for his trouble in making estimate's of the expense of clearing out a well, and filing an engine for the draught of /water item the same, on Epsom racecourse, and also for the price of two locks. ft appeared that the well in question, which was originally 360 feet in depth, had been filkd up 180 feet, and Colonel O'Kelley conceiving it a desirable object to have the race-cow se supplied with wake foe the race horses, applied to the Plaintiff, an en imeer of some eminence, to calculate the expeace of c n it out, and fixing as engine to draw the water. For this purpose Mr. 13samah went down to Epsom, took with him a well. digger, and having surveyed the well, dm& his esti mate, w high so far exceeded the Defendant's expects ticins thus he relinquished his project. A sons of seSe 16.. * h.a paid to the Plaintiff, .which not being suffment for his trouble, the present action was brought. .Two scientific witnesses were called, who *men that the usual charge for an engineer per An was ate gUineris, exclusive of travelling expenses, whith, our eel them (who usually travelled in his gig) would estimate at a guinea. The other witness con caved that dry guinea's was so tar from a :eminent time: that it did nut even amount to ao intictonity. 'Mr. Iit:UMW andsviiseu the Court in s the pert o. the Dtendant, comtuding that the Plaintiff was to taled so no mute tbau the In .e.c of the locks charged, 'amounting to RI. 64. 6d. inasmuch is; the money pair' nto Crow' would amply toter the remainder of the Plaintiff's demand. Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages sil. IBs. 6d. WOODS O. DENNETT. This was an action to recover from the defendant a sum if money upon his band. The plaintiff, it appeared, had purchased of defendant, fn• a sum of MOO. his business of a cheesemonger, in Carnaby Market the defendant at the time he disposed of his business undertaking no: to open any sl n within a mile of Caroaby Market, and giving a bond to that effect; upon which bond the present action was brought, the defendant having, forgetful of his con tract, opened a shop within a mile of Carnabp Mar ket, namely, in High -street, Mary-la-bonne, and thereby materially injured the business of the pl tin tiff, whose receipts had fallen off from £lOO a-week to £4O or £5O ...week. A witness was called who had measured the distance with a wheel, and stated that it was 76 yards short of a mile ; another witnes► %via, had measured with a chain stated, that by the most acentate measurement the distance between the plaintiff's and defendant's shops was 90 yards short of a mile.-011 the part of the defeadant three per sons were called, who stated, that they had measured the distance, and made it mote than a mile; under these circumstances it was agreed to take a verdict for the plaintiff subject to a reference to Mr. Erskine, who is to see the distance measured. BEhJAMIN JobV.l4l V. ATKINS, THE 83W STREET OPIPICER. The plaintiff, a slop-seller in Drury-lane, brought the present action of 'rover against the defendant, Bow-street Offic , r, to recover a horse. The transac tions out of which this suit arose are rather curious. A Mrs. Cutler having a horse to sell, according to the plaintiff's evidence, entrusted it to a person of the name of Newbank, a horse-dealer, who advertised it in a Newspaper. Newbank placed the animal at a tivery-stable, and the plaintiff seeing the advertise ment. went to look at the horse, and finally agreed with Newbank for the price of £5. 12s. and three watches. Joseph in consequence took the louse away, but he had not long had it before he Oat visited by the defendant from the Public Office, who claimed it on the ground that Newbank had stolen it from Mrs. Cutler. Since that time it had been in the posses sion of Atkins. Newbank was taken before Sir N. Conant, on the charge of stealing the horse, and he was committed ; but on an investigation before the Grand Jury, the bill was thrown out: Newbank being called un the part of the plaintiff, swore that he had agreed with 'Mrs. Cutler for the' horse at 18 guineas, and had sold it in consequence 'to Joseph for 45. 12s. and three watches words 12 guineas, but for which he in fact only received eleven guineas : he had parted with them for a mare which sold for that sum. He bad never changed horses fur watches before, and should have made a considerable profit of the bargain had he been out of confinement. Another witness deposed, 'that - Atkins took the horse, claimed it as his own, and took it to his own stables: he said that the horse had been stolen. and he lied the man in custody who committed the theft. Mr. Scaittcrr, for the defendant, submitted, that, sul.posing he could not prove a felony had been com mitted, the present action of (rover could not be main tained. By the Act 2d and 3d of Philip and Mary, a Magistrate was empowered. in cases of horse-stealing, as resole the animal within six months; and in this Case the Magistrate bad ordered the tares. Atkins, to fetch the horse tor that purpose, and it had been .given up to Mrs. Cutler, the owner. Atkins, there fore, had only obeyed his superior, who had autho rity to direct him. On reicri:nce to the clause of the Statute, k ap pealed that the Magistrate was so empowered. " if a horse have been stolen ;" and Lord Eu.stinoaovon held, that it was first necessary to establish the theft. Mr. Scetturt observed, that be should be able to , prove the theft satisfactorily ; in fact, the Magistrate seemed to have neglected to commit Joseph as there ceiver of the stolen horse, as well as Newbank, who was charged with the felony on such evidence as war ranted Sir N. Conant in sending him to gaol. Mrs. Cutler, livery.stable-keeper, denied that she had sail the hurse to Newbank, or bad any negocia.' lion with him about the price. He took the burst away while she was absent; her little boy told her of it : it wag in the day-time, about .one o'clock. The Magistrate sent for her to fetch the horse, and she re ceived it on paying the expenses. This was in June, dad is the mean time Atkins bad had the keeping of the horse. New bank used to bare horses at her stables. Wm. Baker, hostler to the last witness, said. that he was in another stable when Newbank took the horse away : he did not discover that it was gone until halt an hour afterwards. Mrs. Cutler's little boy. 'eleven or twelve years old. told him. 'L'he defendant's case being closed, Lord Em.mrso. mum! :used it there was any warrtmt to Atkins for taking the nom? _ _ . gCAKLZTT allowed that no W*llllllt bad been given for taking the horse t but if Mr. Stafford, Chief Clerk at !lbw-street, had been resent, he could have proved that Sir N. Conant ordered Atkins verblly to take the horse. Lord ELLenionovoar, in summing up, observed, that although Newbankliad been taken up on a charge of felony. it gave the Officer no sight to seize the horse 1 1 without an eapress warrant for that purpose : he had been imprudent in not arming binned with proper au thority, and in claiming the animal as his own pro- perty. In the• supposed theft these seemed no clan destine circumstances to induce an opinion that New bank meant to commit a felony s lie had token away the horse in open day, and in the presence of a boy 12 years old, while the hostler was in another stable of the same yard. On the whole it seemed probabl, that something had passed between Mrs. Cutler aid Newbank on the subject of a sale. The only question for the Jury was, -a heiher the horse had or Ind.:mit been stoical? Verdict for Plaintiff.—Damages, £lB. OLD BAILEY. _ _ Yesterday. ..etas Soisciarri was indicted for felo niously stopping Thomas Warn, at Bethnal Green, on the (6th of April, and taking from his person a ants*, chain and seal, and eighteen shillings' worth of silver.—The prosecutor. who is a pewterer, resid ing in Blackfriar's-road, stated, that having beard much talk of the handsome Widow at Bethn a l g lum, his curiosity led huh thither to take some retreshment with this said hanisome lanulady of Bacon-street.' When opposite the door he was hustled by tour or ovc persons, amongst whom was the prisoner. His wistch was matched grow his fob pocket s sad the prisoner plit his arms round him, nisi to Bank tokens to the amount of 18s. out of his pocket ; wit ness was sober, and he had a distinct sight of him : he called out for assistance. but his v ice was drown ed by the &Immur of others. • A servant to a cow. keeper seized the prisoner, and dragged him into the Ship public-house,. where' urner, an officer of Wor ship street, searched tim, and found the silver exactly corresponding with that which the prosecutor lost, I upon him.—Guilty. - /leery Burrell was indicted capitally for :teeing a watch, three gold seals, and a chain, Irom the prison of George Tilley, on. the King's highway.--The prosecutor ss as walking along Tothilf-street, West minster, on the 21st of April, when the prisoner pushed violently against him, and snatched his watch from him.—Guilty.—Death. Simon: Collin: was put to the bar, ch irged with I having stolen two mares, the property of Francis Yarrow. The prosecutor was a farmer is the Isle of Ely ; on tie '29th of April last, he lost two from his stables ; the next day, the prisoner offered the same to It person at Cherrytree, lcnty.s,it miles distance, fer sale. The buyer zsked him if be came honestly by them? and the prisoner answered, that they belonged to his brother at Cambridge, who was distressed for rent : the prison he offered them to, named Whitbread, asked ben if he blew the names of several publicans at Clint:nage? which the priso ner was Ignorant of, and gave such answers as in duced lVhitbread to suspect him ()Shaving stolen the horses : he was ultimately secured, and the prosecu tor swore to his horses. The prisoner's deteuce was so improbable, as left no doubt of his having stolen therie—Guilty-o Death. J. Mei, for stealing two mares, the property of R. Hatn'n idge, was also capitally convicted. J. Shepherd was indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling-house of J. Dyter, and stealing therein a watch and cotton shawl ; and Elizabeth Reid was indicted for receiving the shawl, knowing it to have been stolen. On the '29th of April, a person, named Turner, came to the prosecutor's house with Stiess herd. When they were gone, the prosecutor's wife missed two CI motes, which she had put into a tea caddy ; but she did not then miss her watch. t:he I went out the same afternoon, and on her return the found her watch had been stolen. 'Ole prisoner pledged the watch, which was identified by the pro• sccuttr as being his property. Verdict—Sheplierd Gie Icy of Stealing . o. Reid Not Guilty. Solomen Baak was indicted for a burglaiy, in•the dwelling-house of Mr. Gonston, and stealing a cash box. containing se9. 6s. ad. a Custom-house ticket, and other articles, the property of Messrs. Grinston, Lucas, and Co. The prosecutors are wharthigers, and the counting-house from whence the property was stolen, was left properly fastened on the night of the 10th of April; but the next morning it was dis covered to have been broken open, and the property stolen. The nett morning the prisoner was stopped, in company with two others (who escaped). in Mark. lane, with the property in his possession. On search ing him, the officers found in one pocket seventeen pick-lock keys, and in the other a dark lantern. In defence, the prisoner said two teen had given him the property. The capital part of the charge was dog c away, the indictment stating that it was the dwelling ] house of Mr. Grit. ,zon, when in fact it was part his son's.—Guilty of sink felony. Ocerge Maim was indicted foe sobbinp, Mr. Flint, l Silk Meyer, in Spital.fields, of his watch, on the 28th of April. The prosecutor was walking with his wife in his own neighbourhood, when the prisoner affect ing to be drunk, reeled against him, and snatched his watch from his pocket. After this he became sober in a moment, and ran off at lull speed, but the prosecutor followed and secured him. The watch lease was found in the track in which the prisoner ran.—Guilty. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, EDINBURGH, MAY if. This day came on before the Court the trial of William Edgar, prisoner in the Castle of Edinburgh, indicted and accused under the Act of the 52d of his present Majesty, for administering unlawful oaths, — It will be in the recollection of our Readers, that 'upon the 9th ult. Edgar was put to the bar, on an indict ment ler this crime, when, after long arguments upon the relevancy of the indictment, by the Some vox GESERAL and Mr. H. H. Diana/some on the pan of the Crown, and Messrs. CLERK and CRAN nowt for the prisoner, the . Court ordered informations in writing to be given in. His Majesty's Advocate, however, thought proper to withdraw the indict tneut, and charge the prisoner upon another. Mr. CRANSTOLS, before allowing his client to plead to the indictment, objected to the competency. He pleaded Not Guilty to a former indictment on the same statute. Objections were then made to the televaincy—informations were ordered, and that case was not taken regularly out of Court. Now, during the dependence of the first action (the diet never having been deserted) it was incompetent for the Lord Advocate to institute a new trial for the. satire I offence. Here were two actions co-existice, for the same crime—the relevancy of the first iiilictinera was challenged, and, alter a debate of twelve Iwurs, the Lord Advocate, by this mode of procetiute, might draw another indictment out of his -pocket, and Call upon the prisoner to plead—sad experience in the criminal law of Scotland cught to caution the Court' how to give way to such a mole of procedure. if it is to be allowed, his klajeste's Advocate might this day sbandon the present action, and cause the pro saner to stand trial for the same crime at the Circuit Court of Inverness or Aberdeen --the prisoner was now in ',Jonah:sr curia, and entitled to its prouctioa.— In this case the prisoner hid pleaded—intormations had been ordered, end fixed to be advised tai; very day, aad it was contrary to every preiciple r.l equity to say, that he was to be called to plead to another indictment for the same crime—he his joined issue with the prosecutor, and if the litter 'gives up the in. dictmeat, be must consent to the total liberation of Cm prisoner. It this was an open point, he Vid no doubt the Court, viewing the hardships it it-vistaed on prisoners, would decide it in the way he suggested, as the case of Charteris was decisive. Mr. Dateustotio, on the part of the Crown, stated, that very few words would suffice to answer the ob jection ; the public prosecutor had not deserted the first indictment, but be had passed from it ; the prat "" was perfectly common ; the case of Crawford, 9th Jan. 1812, was exactly similar. There the psi weer% Counsel had craved a delay of writ 1111[11 flee 3d of February, and before that Uwe the indictment ' was rtmil from, and he WAS served aid% an ind;ct. mint to stand trial on the SATO" , 3d of Fesainery. Mr. )ErFILEY asked i the r:•oner gad pleaded Mr. Dolma NI - ND coniii.ocd, il.at it u s of ~,, nification, AS he could show many similar case where the prisoner had plea led tit: the.. tea., fr .0, t h e Records several cases, and cot:tended that the same procedure took place in every one of the,, cases. it WAS trot the calling of t e diet whicit presented the indictment, it was t!)e serving the new one w!sicli vie. tually gives up the first one. The Loan Ativ, cans followel or. the sarre side, and foend it neca , :sary to sit, that mole month before this new indict:mitt was served, !m -ike was given to the prisoner's Counsel that the first indictment was aband.ined. It w.:s by no means the intention of the rublic prosecutor to oppress any pre. toner. His Lorc'hip then adverted to several cases, aad submitted, that in every c.tse where :he prisoner had not pleaded to en indictment before merely before the indictment was r-ind reicealistc, was in the power of the public prosecutor to abaliac.a that indictment, and the serwits o: a new t v 4B virtually abandoning the fast. Mr. CLUK reple.al for the rris , to..7, and c.nten. ded, in the same terms as Mr. Cr.nstoitn, that the answer given by the Counsel UT the Cit..wn teas no answerat all. In all the cases th it had been quoted, ..hey had gone to trial without any ohjection haying, hern stated. It WAS pustrietly Lid down by M r . Hum; that after a prisoner h.., pleated, it is trot in the power of a prosecutor, public 01 i pr.e.tie, tri o. row up the indictment, and bring a net one. i t „ Iva very alarming power to a public prosectnui—a s'i bitrary power of deserting diets atil::am. Mr. JEFFREY offered himself on ate same side but the LouD ADV(CATE objected to more th n two Counsel speaking on each side, because the prisi.ner was entitled to the last word. The Court found it incompetent for the prisoner to m•ke two replies. Lord 1 - lettuasD WAS desirous of every infor mein to sustain all objection ; but in this case, no:with• a:-.tiding the able aigonsents m Cie prisonet's Coun sel, it ought to be repelled. The two indictor. ins were the same, with the exception of what his Lir..l3liip thouglit an objectionable passage, in the na r4 o ve the first ; the prisoner had no interest in tie oujec. non. It was true, the public prosecutor could wit desert the diet against a prisoner is 'shout the conienr of the Coto t, but the power of passing from or aban doning lie had. The public pre.sectitor had here sled string of C..ses to prove her alpine-lA, Mid it was ct,i,t. geonus to alter terms in criminal law. Lord G1LL16.3 was of a diffaent ()onion; it wit 2 fundamental piiiiciple in , he law of Scotland, that tl.e public prosecutor could virtu. by abandon an is. diciment by brin t ;ing a new one. But what aas the Case here, Bile coefraidion had is no/lid—issue had been joined—the prosionis bad plea Jed - It Muuld bs dangeri'us to give a public prosecutor such a p wee. After fitir erraelia:lin lad taken place, tie i. a d ere power to go out et Court, without the consult of the Court. He was not prepared to say, whedrs this second indictment was a bad one, but he maga tained and held the first cull existed, and must le disposed of. It was said the prisoner had ro imerci: in this objection; he, however. was WI a difort opinion, tit , : :irist.ner was on life and or oth, a.id to man would deny that he had 1 material hottest even in the objection made by his Counsel, that ..- was entitled to the induciZ of 1.5 days upon t%e toad indictment. He could pay no :menu , nto thi cases quoted by the Crown—in none of these the ohji coon was stated, and all men know how often OK diott upright men tell into error. He held it as a ► .l ed principle, that no Lord Advocate could desert all in dictment alter the prisoner luau pleaded; and lie was of opinion the objection was west founded. Lord PristiLoi•, although tie acknowledged that the case was attended with some dilficuiiy, yet be was of opinion Mu the object:on wa. wit wsil founded. He was, however. decidedly agadt:t ceeding rashly, and he suggested that a search be made into the rsCoikls tor precedents, to enah:e the Court to proceed with certainly. The 'podia was most imeortant, and ought to be fixed. Lord ltsscrod said, the case appeared to hire in the light it did to Lord Gabes. It was a grievous hard shiii.for a prisoner to come Court with iwo it:- dictments hanging over his head. de however bail no objection to a search for precedents. The Loan Juirice notwitintay.'.;ng tie great deference he had to the up.oi:ins of his two srt thren who were for suslaining the objectsons, wit not prepared to agree with them. !la LnrdaYll then went over a number of casts to spew prcceder:soi and contended, that sittng there to adinii,:ster jar , nee be was not entitled to put t. rth his rash h .11d to al:er established forms. He was of opitiien toat latei Pituoilly was right in his suggestion that $e A: shoos be made into the recelets r mole infeimation as this subject; at preeettc, however, from the trio ssi ready before him, he cldatiy thought the ob;c 4 was tif,t well founded, and were he called upi7'," present to give his opinion, he wi.uld say so. was, However, proper that a question of this k:VJ shotfie: be gravely and rieliterately Tow, should therelote concur in the proposition to at. for precedents. riot, that uie objection was Well losifidiesi, Tet Colij Lord GILLItiI said, that although he vas of o f :- no objection to a search for preCes:eoti. The Court then appniated both parties to give is 'minutes, stating the different cases which All'elu gi upon the record i &Jun:a; tiezt, and Coutiuued Ise diet no' al olooday there.!!!.T. In"_!). Sunday, at the viestrg2, Dudley, is the prime of hfe, • Antot, win: of ;I , e 1 4 ev. it/r. Ltooker, Vicar ut tha: Fulda April 30, at ial;;Illo t aged tI2, Margaret, Jattiihterut Cattal Matthew Burn., regutivast. May li t at taattburgh, atter three dart Wives aeas! George butterwort h, wrsting•tnaster tit Lduthrtgh. Tuesday, ;:t Wtietstere, Mina vim:a It:slosh, %rife eiCli Francis kale:gh, formerly I uwn ot t :tbr,!..z.r. IVi i ly 8, buddenty, at KeZeile, James Criehtuu, h. q. Feat the Lad ut Lglinteth and me of the .hlagistra . e. ut !mere. PRICE $ tin!: !ink Frock, 3 per Ct. Red. 72.; S per Ct. :Aim. 73: 4 let Cent. u 93 per ".1. Navy 104 104.104 i Its YEA I LIWAY. Long Arm id 9.1 d t I it iJUI z.itg Cli -a• lIGIA evnt .1 , el 1 i)f. Melt. Siii: (spt.) lolly Cut's. for At^. 711 WA rlikt TILI MUMMA/ oi a 1 a.tm: • Brill! , ;" Mu; ens •• 4 sum a 7 int tkikm . • gi 7 LONDON g Vrixtgl 41,1 rubligied by Licit SUIT, 1.'1z.i,. rover-Da. and r 0 j est etren taw Vas cord N 1 cases w i by ct ton RI Lc .lust a a tied sal ft all al- sal Ile was in wh ed that 1 , yet Le „,, ay ) 00. 64 luestioa ri in the J is hard' - het two i?.• the ter bail 1.1 the ;ng t t .l r t h e , ,Wtt srt lap - oh. *et btu ostisit'P Rte i ce.itrot rest; steojig' trth h./4 to bill .I F+Osls 1 , 1 , uS ` 1 stteit CS $ 0 , 3 :abci at• 'fat bbd ' 4 1 :vil 1.11,) ,, tc .00 . 0 et • k , AI LI R A 5!..1 WWI Sett:c 3 pl evi 0 to' of OF Tt he ow:4 : - 4 alto toll give . 1 M hz, rra! and vita ws Now, ad ,„,„.........- tae h, PATe rlll- 1 ' ituy a l bt Corm' INN ' ttCtrr- 3 • ' • Fate' 'Met (tan ran Salt r% ado z , 4 , 1 0,;.. • E.„, Gi 7 lark, 7 ‘4l l *KIR* t'euitlit.l