Star. — London, England, 1822-07-13 00:00:00

.. .1 seere herifilltided to). tehce of it should be thoroughly understood—Wear As to the retrospective effect kear):The Hon. and Learne4 Meibber had admit. ' r " 'the efteralßill'phrlencCrlerafveltst it a ri l Db post iected. to on ted that one clause was obscure. There oug ht to be 1 and in detail u the no obscurity in a measure which affected to regulate such /ado law, a law wo p u o l n d the Prod Parli uc: tair upo i n nc-°nvellitinc . relations so important as those•which arose out of e marriage. His next objection was, that no notice under it,' 4 t h e • p ro p e r ty acqeired lin pi which it might do to suits was taken of Ireland. Hitherto the law in England now in process. To the first objection fie would an% and Ireland had been the same, or nearly the swer, 'that when • . same ; Pled .. it was shown that the Act to be re but this Act would introduce a new practice into one was in itself an infraction of the general rul e country, and leav e an o ld one standing in the other. of Constitutional law, any enactment to bring it back But his prin c ip a l o bj ect i on was, that the Lrds had a that • to origi nal nal state could not be c onsidered struck ou t as ex a very important part of the Bill which i p os t facto. The cases he had ' *went up from this House. He alluded to theclause ;Principleofthe 1 law ever had been retrospective. All which made all marriages valid the • where parties had the marriages from 1642 to 1660, were declared e ohabited together for a number of •vali d b years, without b y the Parliament, although they were con any allusion to th e ages of the parties when they were tracted against the existing law. In truth, it was im married. In the Bill, as it passed this House, were possible to get cases running on all fours, more nearly the words o the same being of the age of one and similar than those • which he had quoted, to these raised twenty years," but these were omitted by the Lords. in the present • day. He regretted that his Honour- Ile next . alluded to the mischief which might be one d • a e bland Learned Friend was not satisfiedwith • • SIMI ‘tO persons who had lent money upon contingent re- larity, but he had required absolute identity of cases. anainders, the security of which might be destroyed It having been dec ided that "hy legalizing the marriages of some of the parties. were • and the issue legal, it marriag es lawful, has still been argued in the This was no indifferent consideration, for there was House of Lor ds , as if the marriages were unlawful, no less than £600,000 or £700,000 worth of property and the issue illegal, so far as related to questions of invested in this • way. Many persons had lent money property. After commen • ting on the arguments that upon the securities of reversions, where there might had been a dd uce d i n the House o f Lords, the Hen. m 1 be two remaind ermen , who issue, if they were a - Gen Leman hoped that he would be excused for lowed to marry, would nullify the security. He also speaking candidly and fearlessly, on a subject of objected to the clause which legitimatized children of truth, and one in which the interests of the Pu blic marriages where t h e parties separated had not inter- were deeply interested. • He would give his hearty married with others, and illegitimatized them where and entire concurrence to the present • . Bill, though he the parties had. H e saw no reason f or t hi s di st i nc- should admit t h at many amendments might be made tiara. He then alluded to the clause inflicting punish- in certain clauses. As Lord H • ardwicke said, he would ment in cases where a license had been obtained by take the Bill for better or worse, though perhaps some a false • • Cfidavits. The punishment, in such case, • was objections to it were of slig ht importance. considered transportati o n ; b u t t h e A ct , i n cases o f marr i age b y Mr. H. GURNEY some of the clauses banns, • was quite silent. Now, this he considered a as most inconsistent and injurious to the interests of most unwise regulation. If it had no other effect, it the Public. would at least give to either of the parties a handle Mr. WETHERELL opposed the Bill. He did not for a separation, and as man and wife, when they did believe that the retros • pective clause would have an quarrel, were generally very bitter against each other, extensive operation, but it could produce m' pm thin b t it was not improb a ble th at one o f t h em wou ld assert mischief and injustice. They had heard of the g u ' - that the affidavits upon which the license was ob. rice of canvassing for votes upon private bills, and tamed were false. He then alluded to the difficulties that was bad enough ; but until the present measure imposed by the Bill upon getting a license—namely, was proposed; he never o heard of canvassing for votes the necessity of having the affidavits of third persons upon a question affecting the most important interests as to the identity of the persons, and the entry from of the Public. It was noto • nous, too, that this case the registry. These restrictions, with the threat of had an aspect to a particular case now under litiga ti anspoitation and Newgate, were enough to bleak firm—(heer, hear). What, he would ask, was the old the spirits of young people. He should certainly ad- law, which this Bill was intended to replace? Was it vise all his young friends to live bachelors all their not framed by Lord Hardwicke, one of the greatest lives, and condemn themselves to perpetual celibacy, men that ever this country produced ? And was not rather than run the rick of all these punishments. He the present Bill opposed by the Lord Chancellor of 1 ha 4 heard that a certain Noble Lady had a hand in the year 1822, whose legal learning, and knowledg e, : framing this Bill, and, from the na t ure of the Bill, be and high acquirements, rendered him at least equal, , was hail inclined to believe it, for there was snore of if not superior, to his great predecessor in that office? a feminine than a masculine character in its enact- He (Mr. Wetherell) admitted that the fee l ings of pa. nients. The Hon. Member then proceeded to con- rents were exposed to deep »qui • ' -y by the operation of ment udon some other of its clauses, and he con-' the existing law, and his mind required no moralising, : eluded by representing the whole as mischievous in humanising influence, to make him regret it as deeply I many particulars, and unintelligible in sonic others. as any one; but such regret would not induce him to —And he asked, would the House pass such a Bill throw aside the principles of established law, and upon so serious a matter as that of marriage, out of disregard the constitutional rights of property. By a which the titles to all honours and all property, and full examination of the clauses, and the necessary upon which, of all other subjects in the world, legis- Amendments to them being made, he might become lation ought to be as clear as possible? It was said, reconciled to the principle of the measure. But 'with that some new enactments might be introduced next out ample discussion he thought it impossible that Session, and that it would be well to repeal at least the House should agree to a Bill containing so many a portion of the present law. He did not stand up to new enactments upon which they had not deliberated. contend that there were not parts of the present law Dr. PHILLIMORE denied that the Bill was in, which would not well admit of amendment, bat what tended to apply to a particular case. A Bill was in he maintained was, that no Bill to repeal all the laws troduced into the House in the year 1817, of a much relating to marriages now in force, should pass the more retrospective nature than the present; and the House of Commons, which was not sanctioned by the case alluded to was not then in existence. • conscientious approval of a very great majority of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL spoke in opposi• 1 that A'sembly—(Hear, hear).—The Honourable and Lion to the Bill. It destroyed the Act introduced by Learned Gentleman then moved as an Amendment, Lord Hardwicke, but it left nothing to supply its s' That these Amendments be read a second time this place. He proceeded to point out the hardships day six months." which the Bill would entail upon parties affected by Mr. PLUNKETT defended the Bill. In answer its operation, and particularly deprecated the placing to what had been said of the propriety of a Member's at the disposal of the Crown the extraordinary power understanding every sentence of every Bill to which of confiscating property for the commission of au he gave his sanction, he, for one, would say, that illegal act with regard to marriage. The question these were many Bills in this House for which he for the House to consider was not, as the eloquence voted, and yet every sentence of which he did not of his Right Hon. Friend had endeavoured to per understand. If no Bills were to be passed, and no suade them, whether a nullity of marriage should be Acts have the force of laws, of which every sentence allowed which would produce all the misery and dis was nut understood, sad indeed would be the condi- tress which he had described, but whether they should tion of many of the folio volumes of Statutes—(4 pass a Bill changing the whole principles of our mar• lazigh).—But, seriously speaking, he thought this a riage laws with such haste as to defy all deliberation, good measure—(!lear.)—He thought that it would and preclude all discussion? He then proceeded to do great and essential good, and that it would do examine the prospective clauses and pointed out the away with great and manifold injustice and cruelty. anomalies and blunders which they contained. One It was a Bill brought forward to repeal the Marriage provided, that if one of the parties were of age, each Act of 1751 ; an Act so full of injustice and incon- should swear the other was 21. Then again it was to sistency, that Blackstone admitted it was an inroad be necessary that a copy of the register of the births upon the ancient Constitution of the country. That of the parties should be produced to the Clergyman. Marriage Act was brought in for a particular pur- —Now it was very well known, that in many cases pose—namely, to prevent the younger branches of persons were not registered for months, or years after noble families from contracting unsuitable alliances. being born. This would be the .case where children This was a limited object, and, indeed, an evil to were born while their parents were out of the country. which only a limited redress could be applied. In So that when the register was produced, the person fact, it was an evil which hardly called for legislative could not marry, although in fact he might be more interference at all, for the most proper, as it certainly than of age. Another provision was, that the houses would have been the most effectual way of prevent- of the parties should be affixed to the church doors, ing such marriages, would be so to train up the chit- and in some conspicuous pal t within the church ! dren in moral habits, and instil into them virtuous (A laugh.)—The credit of this, however, did not be precepts, that they would shudder at the idea of dis- long to their Lordships. It was in the clause of his honouring their families by low connections. The Honourable and Learned Friend. With regard Legislature, however, thought proper to interfere ; to the retrospective operation of the Bill, he had but what did they do? To an ordinary mind, the heard with surprise from his Right Hon. Friend the most obvious course would have been to throw such Attorney-General for Ireland, that retrospective ope- difficulties in the way of effecting a legal marriage, ration was an ordinary principle of legislation. Now -as to make it almost impossible, without the consent he confessed that this was contrary to all that ever of the parents or guardians; but, instead of doing so, he had heard or read. the Act permitted the marriages, and then inflicted a Mr. PLUNKETT observed that he did not say so. punishment upon all parties alike, guilty or innocent., What he said was, that in cases affecting property, blow, in this respect at least, the present Bill had the i retrospective enactment was an ordinary principle of advantage of the Marriage Act. That Act permitted legislation. • a license to be G iven upon the oath of the guilty per - The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that such en. sou himself; b ut this Bill required the affidavits of ! actments only applied to the particular cases, 'but third persons, a, to the identity of the persons, and I i this p ro p osition was for recognizing the princip le the entry in the Registry. The Marriage Act also ;in a general and public law—(Moan , hear).— destroyed the inheritable blood of the children of in- ;If the B i ll should p ass, an y yOung man of family valid marriages, s o that they debarred the descent of might marry a prostitute, and parents have no remedy , . property to all who might claim through them. This ' —Much had been said respecting the punishment of it children for the faults of their parents. Unfortunately was au inconvenience the present Bill avoided, for did not destroy the inheritable blood of marriages, a vi o lat ion or disre g ard of the law had . that e ffe ct.l aw to make chi'. though they might be declared invalid. With all but it was the p olic y of En g lish I of their father. T he law these disadvantages, then, he rejoiced that th e Mar- , dren suffer for the offenc es . that effect. With respect Tiage Act was about to undergo an.eutire alteration. ! of attainder had precisely 'He reg., cued, at the same time, that its only de- to property, the House could never in its justice de fencer, in the other House clunild he two men, from • prive persons of their vested rights. The retrospee whose enlai g ed views more would have been ex- tire clause would unhinge the of 1754. In all - law . n. petted. (The Lord Chancellor and Lord Stowell . the statutes esistin g tights had bees strictly ma.i • . _ . . : • A. . . tamest. He called on the Home to pans* hetore theyl passed this Iliß. ' They ought to consider in what 1 , state their property would stand. This Bill had been ' so altered in the House of Lords, that It tame down as a new measure, to which, he contended, the House of Commons aught to withhold their ebnsent. Sir JAMES. MACKINTOSH argued strongly in support of the Bill, and especially the retrospective clause. He supported that Same, not for the sake of those who had broken the law, bat for the sake of unoffending innocent children ; and not only for the childrea concerned; bat for the Public generally. It was said that this was a law to serve individual fa milies; he denied that assertion; it was a taw ap plying to every faMily in the kingdom, and was as much a general law as any that ever passed.' The House had been told that the great and eminent law authorities of the House of Lords were opposed to this Bill. The fate of the Bill in that House was de cidedly in favour of its merits; for, notwithstanding ,the transcendent abilities, the extraordinary powers of its opponents, it had survived all the powerful at tacks made upon it, and had been adopted by repeated and overpowering majorities. He knew it was usual to say that the House should look back to, and be guided by, the great legal authorities—he denied that assertion. Ifthe.question was as to what was law— then, indeed, the House eughtto be guided by lawyers; but if the question was, what ought to be law? then the House should judge for itself , without consulting lawyers, or attending to thei r sub tleties. i The Marquis of LONDONDER RY also supported the Bill, and defended the retrospective clauses, as absolutely necessary; as the law new stood, families might be tainted without the parties having the least . suspicion. The act of the parent might, as in the case of treason, attaint the children; but with still more mischievous effect, for in the case of treason, the treason was apparent at the time, and the Crown might of its mercy reverse the attainder, and restore the innocent descendant of the party guilty of treason to his rights; but in case of nullity of marriage, the person was concealed, and might so continue for ge nerations, and then burst out with extended ruin and destruction to hundreds of innocent individuals; and he must be a bold man, indeed, who would under take to contend that in a few years to come there would be a single Noble Family in the country in whose descent an astute lawyer might not find a blot. Mr. CANNING feared that this was a question which they could not decide either way with perfect satisfaction to themselves ; but for the law, at it now stood, no man Juod avowed himself an advocate; and the House would gain by substituting any measure less painful and less penal than the present law. It had been argued that this Bill arose out of a specific case. He knew nothing of the parties interested in that case.; but if it were pressed upon him in the ar gument, he most take it as an illustration of the hardship which the Bill sought to reme dy —( Hear, hear). -- The Right Hon. Gentleman, at some length, supported the Bill, and exhorted the House to pass it, 'even with all its defects, lest they should never have such an opportunity to establish the principle of it. The House then divided, when there appeared For the Motion - - 122 Against it - - - *- 20 I , ' Majority - - .- - --••••102 • mined to resent Ms dishonour, declared he vroula never see Ms guilty. wife more. fake care," was her reply; s , I hare participated in Glentworth's act* I'll give hint up such lettatras will-ebew that you hate been the wanton pander of my crime."— The plaintiff resisted all this► he foll Owed npthese menaces with the following' words:-- , . Recollect your situatiOn; ht.re I am with money fur your re lease from prison, and with such means as will enable us to live at our ease in future." He begged heeto withdtaw ; she raved, became angry, a constable•was called, and the plaintiff attended her putt be found the noble defendant then close to the door, who called Mrs. Nowlan his own, took possession of her, and abased the plaintiff in the severest manner. Mt. Kos slier, the plaintiff's brother-in-law, married to Mrs. Nowlan's sister, was then assailed by Lord Gleut worth, and grossly insulted; the keepers were or derd by Lord Ulentworth, the King of this prison, not to allow Mr. Ilossiter to enter the prison again. The Rev. John Welsh, a Roman Catholic Priest, proved the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Nowlan, in her father's house, In 1817 ; as a girl, he said, she had been virtuous and well conducted; both she and Mr. Nowlan were Roman Catholics; Witness knew tbent after their marriage ; he conceived that,while be saw thens,libey lived on good terms. Crusevrawiaseel by Mr. Scanmn—Mr. Nowlan was about 00, Mrs. Nowlan about Sig, 'at their marriage; some of her hotly had disapproved of the match. Captain Later Haggerty, brother to Mrs. Nowlan,was next eta mined by Mr. Wsw.aes—Hewas, he said, intimate with them for some years after the marriage; up to July, 1821, they had lived together on tolerably good terms; her conduct was good during that time; Mrs. .Nowlan is a good-looking woman, now about 30. • (Seventeen nines were here handed up by Mr. O'Cnn. nelt,and witness allowed them to be the hand•writing of the plain ' tiff.) The latter had been six or eight months in the county ef Long ford at one time away &am hie wife ' • witness, at the re q uest o f the plaintiff, went to hi s s i ster t o her lodgings in Thomas:street, to effect a reconciliation between her and her husband, who said he wished to see the child Mrs. Nowlan lay in of; witness did not notice the child; cannot tell whether or not he was like Ms father; Mrs. Nowlan went to the prison, but did not take the child ; witness dined with them, and his sister returne d to h er lodgings before he (wi tness ) retired from the prison. On Mrs. Nowlan's departure that evening, witness remembers her bus. band kissed her, and saw her to the dour ; h e admitted he had heard of bicke rings between them, and to a question from Mr. Wallace, answered, he knew n ot hi ng I mproper of Mt. . Joint Ayers, Esy. examined by Mr. Noavu—Swore, that 4 t the Marshalsea, Mr. an d M rs . Nowlin appeared to b e on good terms; remembers some remarks of the prisoners —one was, " that the old gentleman was extremely attentive to his yotms wife." Lord Glentwerth had the Marshal's apartments outside the prison. On witness being asked when he was discharged from prison? Witless--µ 0! his Lordship can tell that I" alluding to the Chief Justice having opposed his discharge, when he was Solicitor-General. 'try AMC Dodd, examined by Mr. Watuca.—Swore she was Lord Glentworth's servant, and that she saw Mrs. Nowlan in Lord Gleutworth's apartments for three months and a fort: - night; they ate and dreak together, and slept in the same bed together. Witness was first employed by Lord Glentworth about the Oath of October last ; left Mrs. Nowlan behind her at Lord Gketwurtles, when she left his Lordship's service. Mamas Ormsby, Deputy Marshal of the Four Courts Marshal• sea, proved that Lord Glentworth had been a prisoner two years; he occupied witness's apartments, w►ere witness had mot been slate Lord Glentworth first occupied them ; saw a female going.up stairs, whom he suspected to have been Mrs. Nowlan. Lord' elentworth occupies two rooms, for which ►e pays Si. per week—U. for each room. - Thomas Henry Lynch, Esq. was called.—.Hte stated that his name was Thomas_Juseph Lynch. In May last he swore that he was in the Four Courts blarshalsea, and one evening saw Lord Glentworth -descending the stairs with a candle in his hand ; his Lordship then said, alluding, as witness supposes, to the .plaintiff—" Thefe's the rascal that did it." Mr. Nowlan replied—". Get away, you are a dirty fellow:" Lord Glentworth then accused Mr. Nowlan with having been a pander, that he absolutely had put his wife to bed to hi m , an d t h at h e ha d his let. tern to prove it. Mt. Nowlan made no reply, but went to his room. John Grace, examined by Mr. Norm—Keeps a mess in the prison ; was in the act of carving at supper, in the Marshalsea, on one occasion, when Mr. and Mrs. Nowlan werepresent ; saw Lord Glentworth near Mr. Nowlan's apartment that night; a row ensued ; witness, his wife, &c. went out of the room shortly after; before be went out the witness saw a large woman coming in, and ran to the door, for , said he (witness), i t i s t h e custom of that prison, whenever a raw took place, that every persow Assad he concerned. Lord G. seeing the scuffle between Mr. and Mrs. Nowlan, said, i• Mr. Grace, Mrs. Grace, Mr. Rossitcr, Miss Roberts, by G— you are all cowards." Cross-examined by Mr. O'Cosssit.—Made no reply to the ob. serration of Lord Glentworth, as he was not anxious to be con. corned in the row; did not lose his supper that night, but re. turned to it with a pretty good appetite; he was summoned to it by Mr. Nowlan when the row was over; never applied to the Marshal to turn Nowlan out of his rooms, because he went to ['earce's, and not to his (Grace's) meas. Here the plaintiff's case closed, and . Some of the clauses were then agreed to, but The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he hoped that the House, at this advanced period of the night, would not dispose of so i mportant a measure. Mr. BROUGHAM opposed the suggestion for any delay,. He wished to secure the 11111 while it was within his grasp. On the clause respecting marriages already declared void by Courts of competent jurisdiction, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to attend the lan guage of the clause, so as to retain the jurisdiction of the Courts as to marriages now in suit. &rangers were ordered to withdraw, but the Honourable and Learned Gentleman did not, press his motion to a division, and the clause was agreed to in its original state. The other clauses were agreed to; and the Bill was passed.— The Scotch Spirits Drawback Bill was read a third time and passed. The Salt Duty Bill (Ireland) went through a Committee.— Ordered to be reported on Monday next. Adjourned at a Quarter to Three &Clock. CRI,II. CON. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, JULY s. OWEN GEOGHEGAN NOWLAN, PLAINTIFF ; THE HON. HENRY KARSTROND PERT, COMMONLY CALLED LORD VISCOUNT GLENTWORTH, DEFENDANT. This was an action brought by_the plaintiff to re cover damages of the defendant. The damages were laid at £lO,OOO. Defendant pleaded the general scue. * Sir H. MEREDITH Bart. stated the plainti ff 's case. The plaintiff was ab out three years a prisoner in the Four Courts Marshalsea, where the noble defendant was also confined for debt ; the plaintiff's wife resi ded for some time in the prison with her husband; her husband had been there for five months before an intimacy commenced between him and the de fendant, who,- about August, 1820, knocked at Mr. Nowlan's door in the prison, to inquire for a Mr. Andrews, who was sitting with the plaintiff and his wife; he conducted himself, on being asked to sit, with great respect and politeness ; he did say that he was a married Man, and the father of a family, his wife a resident of the city. An intimacy grew out of this introduction. Lord Glentworth had been con nected with the family of Hussey ; he, therefore, re presented himself (said . Sir H. Meredith) as connected with the plaintiff by this union; he introduced his own daughter, called Lady Pery, to" a daughter of the plaintiff's. In March, 1821, Mrs. Nowlan went to the County of Carlow ; on her return she went to lodgings in Thomas-street, near the Four Courts Marshalsea. Her days were spent in the prison with her husband ; she shortly after gave birth to an in fant, and subsequently refused to return to sleep in the prison, as she had formerly done ; a disagreement had occurred between her and her husband, - and a reconciliation was brought about by hen brother, Captain Haggarty, whom she had at first refused to see : he had not told the plaintiff his disgrace. This brings us (said Sir H. Meredith) to July, 1821, when the plaintiff learned that his wife had become the mistress of Lord Glentworth. This action was come =need in. November, I82L; to that declaration the defeddant pleaded is Not Guilty." Sir HENRY, in continuation, stated, that after the action had been commenced, Mrs: Nowlan rushed into the presence of her husband, fell on her knees before him in his apartment in the prison, and sup plicated his forgiveness • this was done at the sug gestion of L° ; 4 01514,11°rib, for the purpose of lessen , *Om 'at Aiintif4. deter- Mr. BLACKBURNE, for the defence, said, that the Counsel for defendants in such actions as the present had to encounter peculiar difficulties, arising out of the justifiable prejudice felt against defendants in cases of crim. con. he trusted, however, that he should be able to remove the obstacles that barred his way in the present case. He reminded the Jury that they were there for the purpose of - measuring the amount of the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled fer the loss of his wife's affections and society : he said he would establish by evidence the plaintiff's cruelty to his wife, his exposure of that wife to contamination, on which occasion he had joked with her, and sent her back to the scene of her pollution with a kind of license under his own hand to continue her crimes.—. If I had not, said Mr. Blackberne, evidence of this under the plaintiff's own hand and seal, I would not venture to state it. He then adverted to the time Mr. Nowlan had been confined, to his conduct to wards his wife, which he said was cruel and severe. he had beaten and kicked her; and on one occasion, when a Mr. Burke had interfered to prevent this con. duct, he had actually threatened that gentleman with an action for an assault.—Gentlemen of the Jury, (said 'Mr. Blackbutne), see what the plaintiff deserves for the loss of the society of that wife whom he so basely and wantonly treated ; he had incurred pecuniary obligations to Lord Glentworth, and he (Mr. Black burne) wondered he could dare come belore an Irish Jury for damages. When he (the plaintiff) received Mrs. Nowlan after her accouchement, he pardoned her for her past adultery; for the child which had just been born was not her husband's, and he knew it. Before this be wrote her letters, one of which says, (writing to Mrs. Nowlan,) • " lam sorry you are acting as you should not have done; though you say that the child is not mine, you should king him to introduce him to we; when you do, 171 give him a ono pound note. I have only *CU at present ; I think you had better be a good child ; see your sister and come here. I can't awl to keep twh tables ; one table will suit us better than two. Come In tomorrow-; let me see the child ; as he is not mime, ae•you say in the note, will you tell me who is the rasher, that I may wish hint joir"...--In &later note he says, When will you lave a 'south hay P e you lost the second; believe me you are not acting right." Gentlemen of the Jury (continued Mr.Blackburne), bad as that letter is, I have worse passages, in bus other other letters yet to read—hear this in another: Yen say- the cbud L no t an kto—wlo Is his lathe I simuld be glad so as. you a nd the eked. Stump "Ts s .4 m i n i t i ron . sea if slue boy—l win' rig wane come an d o ast and la me om ray •eoe befeN 74, so-out et Dstigia FIRP - ""r7r." - 00*i ~~~ II