alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeDisarming Disinformation...克里姆林宫的宣传面孔:玛丽亚·扎哈罗娃

# 									克里姆林宫的宣传面孔:玛丽亚·扎哈罗娃							

2023年4月24日

玛丽亚·扎哈罗娃是克里姆林宫的忠实传声筒,也是俄罗斯虚假信息和宣传最狂热的传播者之一,自2015年以来,她一直担任俄罗斯外交部的发言人。她是苏联外交官的女儿,童年的大部分时间在父亲就职的北京度过。扎哈罗娃曾于2005年至2008年担任俄罗斯驻纽约联合国使团的新闻处负责人,2011年至2015年担任外交部新闻和信息司副司长。

扎哈罗娃以好勇斗狠的风格、尖酸刻薄的语调和极端反西方情绪而昭著于世。她在其主持的新闻发布会上经常出现不合外交礼仪的失态,例如,她在电视直播中威胁记者,或愤怒地回答令其不快的问题。她毫不避讳地重复克里姆林宫最离谱的谎言,例如声称白宫曾经将奥萨马·本·拉登(Osama Bin Laden)作为官方客人接待,散布耸人听闻的信息,例如,她本人挥拳打向一个标着“新闻记者”的假人的视频,表面上像是为了支持俄罗斯奥运选手。她的好勇斗狠风格是她的新闻发布会在YouTube​​上获得成千上万人观看的原因之一,她的Facebook和Telegram账户分别有超过50万名粉丝。

## 抵赖伎俩

俄罗斯于2022年2月无端全面入侵乌克兰之前,扎哈罗娃不遗余力地否认俄罗斯有任何战争计划,反复指责西方媒体散布虚假报道。 她称有关即将发生全面入侵乌克兰的报道是“歇斯底里”,谎称 “盎格鲁撒克逊人需要不惜一切代价打一场战争”。俄罗斯入侵前几天,扎哈罗娃在接受BBC采访时宣称,俄罗斯的侵略者名声是西方“捏造”的,俄罗斯“没有侵占过乌克兰领土”,尽管俄罗斯2014年入侵和占领克里米亚并企图夺取乌克兰东部地区。为了诋毁和嘲笑揭露克里姆林宫准备在2月初发动大规模军事进攻的媒体报道,扎哈罗娃要求美国和英国媒体提供进一步入侵的时间表,以便她“安排度假”。9天后,俄罗斯对乌克兰发起了攻击。

自2022年2月以来,扎哈罗娃在传播克里姆林宫有关战争的虚假信息方面发挥了关键作用,包括否认俄罗斯在乌克兰使用伊朗无人机,以及竭力对俄罗斯军队成员犯下战争罪和其他暴行的证据进行抵赖。 她顽固声称,有关俄罗斯使用伊朗无人机的报道“只不过是一系列毫无根据的结论和牵强附会的假设而已”,即便在俄罗斯国防部专家鲁斯兰·普霍夫 (Ruslan Pukhov) 在直播中承认了俄罗斯正在使用伊朗无人机攻击乌克兰民用基础设施之后仍坚持这个谎言。尽管有文件记录证据表明俄罗斯军队成员在布查和乌克兰其他地方犯下了战争罪,她继续坚称俄罗斯被“毫无根据地指控”故意造成平民伤亡。《纽约时报》和路透社都已独立证实,俄罗斯军队控制该镇时,布查的平民遭到杀害。扎哈罗娃拒不承认各种来源的越来越多的证据证实俄罗斯当局审讯、拘留和/或强行驱逐了90万至160万乌克兰公民,称这些证据为“谎言”。

## 转嫁责任

扎哈罗娃重复了克里姆林宫不能证实的说法,即乌克兰正在准备一枚“脏弹”以便栽赃莫斯科,她呼吁西方“施加影响力让受其保护的乌克兰人放弃这一最危险的冒险活动”。她声称,这一所谓策划的“挑衅”目的在于指责俄罗斯使用大规模毁灭性武器,同时暗示乌克兰可能会利用“核讹诈”来获得更多的西方金融和军事援助。国际原子能机构受乌克兰邀请前往调查俄罗斯的“脏弹”指控,确认没有发现任何未申报的核活动。美国国务卿和法国、英国外交部长在10月23日的联合声明中指出,俄罗斯关于脏弹的指控是“彻头彻尾的谎言”,并警告俄罗斯不要利用这一指控作为战争升级的借口。除了捏造关于脏弹的警示外,扎哈罗娃和其他俄罗斯官员多次否认俄罗斯有在乌克兰使用核武器的意图。美国总统拜登回应道:“如果普京没有[在乌克兰使用核武器的]意图,那么他为什么还要持续谈论此事?他可以通过撤离乌克兰来结束这一切”。

在全球粮食安全问题上,扎哈罗娃经常推进俄罗斯政府试图转移责任和指责他人加剧全球粮食危机的活动。扎哈罗娃将俄罗斯封锁乌克兰谷物的行为称为“西方和乌克兰的虚假信息”。她还捏造指控西方国家通过媒体散布有关莫斯科正准备破坏一艘运载乌克兰谷物船只的谣言,指责美国阻止俄罗斯农产品的出口。她对于加剧全球粮食不安全问题是普京对乌克兰的侵略战争造成的,而非针对这一侵略所采取的制裁措施的事实混淆视听。美国和盟国合作伙伴的制裁包括对俄罗斯农产品的特定豁免,允许俄罗斯进出口和再出口粮食。当俄罗斯政府于10月29日宣布暂停参加联合国斡旋的黑海谷物倡议(Black Sea Grain Initiative​​)时——后来已恢复参加——扎哈罗娃声称这项粮食协议被“英国专门人员领导的泽连斯基及其恐怖分子所破坏”,并指责乌克兰进行“粮食讹诈”。

扎哈罗娃试图在美国及其伙伴之间挑拨离间,指责华盛顿制定了一项“邪恶计划”,通过对乌克兰提供的美国援助削弱欧盟成员国的经济,使它们陷入“奴隶性依赖”状态,从而导致它们的“毁灭”。她的这一说法是针对乌克兰政府有关通过合作伙伴对乌克兰军队的投资来增进乌克兰的安全以及继续对俄罗斯实施制裁的建议所做的回应。

## 盟国制裁、普京颁奖

2022年6月2日,美国国务院因扎哈罗娃”作为俄罗斯联邦政府外交部发言人的角色”对其进行了制裁。2022年2月,欧盟对她进行制裁,称其为“政府宣传的核心人物”,并因其“宣扬了俄罗斯军队在乌克兰的部署”而对她实施制裁。英国、日本、澳大利亚和新西兰也对扎哈罗娃实施了制裁。

扎哈罗娃仍然是俄罗斯虚假信息最高调的传播者之一,是克里姆林宫忠实的宣传人员。2020年,弗拉基米尔·普京授予她“功勋勋章”以奖赏她在传播克里姆林宫谎言方面的功劳,称赞她“为俄罗斯外交政策的实施做出了重要贡献以及多年勤奋的外交服务”。

Back to Top
40695.

#### RICHARDSON v. ANDERSON.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

The record reveals that in a prior appearance this case was first brought to the Supreme Court. That court transferred the case to this court on the ground that no question of the construction of a will was presented but only the question as to the proper disposition of funds received from a condemnation proceeding. *Richardson v. Anderson,*219 Ga. 264 (133 SE2d 16). When received in this court, Judge Hall pointed out that no final judgment regarding the disposition of condemnation funds had been entered by the trial court and dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction. *Richardson v. Anderson,*108 Ga. App. 842 (134 SE2d 827). Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment disbursing the condemnation funds in accordance with its *228previous judgment construing the will. Exceptions are now brought only to the judgment ordering the disbursement of the condemnation funds. *Held:*

Decided September 9, 1964.

*Scott, Scroggins, Cash & Crim, Frank T. Cash,*for plaintiff in error.

*Foster & Fudge, Norman H. Fudge,*contra.

The judgment of the trial court awarding the proceeds derived from the condemnation proceedings must be affirmed.

The judgment of the trial court construing the will has not been excepted to in the present bill of exceptions. Accordingly, the judgment construing the will has now become the law of the case.

The judgment here excepted to is the judgment of the trial court directing the distribution of funds derived from a condemnation proceeding. Since the judgment excepted to is in accord with the judgment of the trial court construing the will which has now become the law of the case, there is no error in the judgment excepted to.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1


Summary Sheet: Terms of Employment for Named Executive Officers for 2021


Employment Status


Pursuant to the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, the employees of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (the "Bank"), including the Bank's chief executive officer, the chief financial officer and other named executive officers as of December 31, 2020 (Stephen P. Traynor, Joseph Amato, Elena Andreadakis, Suzanne Titus-Johnson, and Greg Ward) (the “named executive officers”), are “at will” employees. The named executive officers may resign at any time and the Bank may terminate their employment at any time for any reason or no reason, with or without cause and with or without notice.


Each of the named executive officers receives a base salary and is eligible to participate in the Bank's executive incentive compensation plans and comprehensive benefit programs, including both qualified and nonqualified retirement benefit plans. For 2021, the base salaries of the named executive officers are as follows: Stephen P. Traynor, $470,000; Joseph Amato, $500,000; Elena Andreadakis, $470,000; Suzanne Titus-Johnson, $450,000; and Greg Ward $415,0001.


On occasion, the Bank may pay for resort activities for employees, including our named executive officers, in connection with business-related meetings; and in some cases, the Bank may pay the expenses for spouses/partners accompanying employees to these meetings or other Bank-sponsored events. 


The Board adopted the Corporate Senior Officer Severance Policy (Senior Officers' Policy) applicable to the president, each executive vice president (other than the interim chief financial officer), and any senior vice president as of December 31, 2018, defined in the Senior Officers’ Policy as “Corporate Senior Officer”. The Senior Officers' Policy provides severance benefits in the event that the employee's employment is terminated because the employee's job or position is eliminated or because the job or position is substantially modified so that the employee is no longer qualified or cannot perform the revised job. For these officers, severance under the Senior Officers' Policy is equal to the greater of (i) 12 weeks of the officer's base salary, or (ii) the sum of three weeks of the officer's base salary, plus three weeks of the officer's base salary for each full year of service and three weeks of base salary prorated for each partial year of service at the Bank to a maximum of 52 weeks of base salary. The Senior Officers' Policy also provides one month of continued health and life insurance benefits and, at the Bank's discretion, outplacement assistance. The Senior Officers' Policy also provides severance payments in connection with a "Change in Control" (as defined by the Senior Officers' Policy).




									
			
	1Base salaries for named executive officers are subject to Federal Housing Finance Agency review and non-objection.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tommy PORTER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 66591.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Tommy Porter, applying for remedial writs. Orleans Parish. Nos. 272-231 and 272-443.

Denied.
Exhibit 99.1

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merchants
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph L. Boutin, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted
pursuant to [SECTION]906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the
Company.

                                       Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

                                       By: /s/ Joseph L. Boutin
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Joseph L. Boutin
                                           President & Chief Executive Officer


                                       May 13, 2003
                                       ------------
                                       Date


<PAGE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary McKeon’s Meeting with UN Controller Ramanathan

# 									Deputy Secretary McKeon’s Meeting with UN Controller Ramanathan							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

December 16, 2022

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Yesterday, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Brian P. McKeon met with the United Nations Controller, Assistant Secretary-General for Program Planning, Finance, and Budget Chandramouli Ramanathan.  Deputy Secretary McKeon discussed the longstanding U.S. commitment to the UN, including as the largest donor to the UN.  He underscored the Biden Administration’s support for the UN as indispensable to global efforts to address challenges, such as food insecurity, humanitarian issues, and the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Tags

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesOffice of the SpokespersonUnited Nations

Back to Top
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions  set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade  secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal  information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of  personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee F-Manpower & Training; NCI-F Manpower & Training Grants.                    

*Date:*                         October 5-6, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lynn M. Amende, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Resources And Training Review Branch, Division Of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd, Room 8105, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-4759,                          *amendel@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 1, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-21774 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.30 Effect of primary payment on benefit utilization and deductibles. ( a ) *Benefit utilization.* Inpatient psychiatric hospital and SNF care that is paid for by a primary payer is not counted against the number of inpatient care days available to the beneficiary under Medicare Part A.
( b ) *Deductibles.* Expenses for Medicare covered services that are paid for by primary payers are credited toward the Medicare Part A and Part B deductibles.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1082 Evidence admissible on review. ( a ) The Departmental Appeals Board may admit evidence into the record in addition to the evidence introduced at the ALJ hearing, (or the documents considered by the ALJ if the hearing was waived), if the Board considers that the additional evidence is relevant and material to an issue before it.
( b ) If it appears to the Board that additional relevant evidence is available, the Board will require that it be produced.
( c ) Before additional evidence is admitted into the record— ( 1 ) Notice is mailed to the parties (unless they have waived notice) stating that evidence will be received regarding specified issues; and
( 2 ) The parties are given a reasonable time to comment and to present other evidence pertinent to the specified issues.
( d ) If additional evidence is presented orally to the Board, a transcript is prepared and made available to any party upon request.
#### OPINION OF THE CLERK.

Opinion No. 30.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 20, 1980.

SENTELL, Clerk.

RULE 7, ALABAMA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION-NO DOCKET FEE ON MODIFICATION OF A FINAL DECREE WITHOUT A PETITION

Mr. Dewaine Sealy, Circuit Clerk of Mar-engo County, has submitted to me, pursuant to § 12-2-19(d), Code 1975, the following questions:

> (1) Would you please issue me a written opinion as to what authority I have to collect a docketing fee on modifications of a final decree, which contains only an agreement between the parties, ratified by the judge, but without any petition being filed?

> (2) By what authority would I file and collect a docketing fee on an agreement modification between the parties not ratified by the judge?

In answer to the first question, there is no authority to collect a docketing fee on modifications of a final decree, which contains only an agreement between the parties, ratified by the judge, but without any petition being filed.

In answer to the second question, there is no authority to file and collect a docketing fee on an agreement modification between the parties, not ratified by the judge.

These answers are based on Rule 7, “Fees for Miscellaneous Filings,” Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, which reads:

> *1155“Any filing for which there is no express cost under the consolidated fee structure shall be treated as an original filing for cost purposes.”

The “filing,” the collection of which is authorized by Rule 7, is the filing of a case. *Opinions of the Clerk,*No. 1, April 26, 1977, Ala., 345 So.2d 1329; No. 3, May 4, 1977, Ala., 345 So.2d 1338.

A “ease” is a judicial proceeding for the determination of a controversy between parties where rights are enforced or wrongs are prevented or redressed. *Opinions of the Clerk,*No. 1, April 26, 1977, Ala. 345 So.2d 1329; No. 12, August 8, 1978, Ala., 361 So.2d 534.

It is my opinion that the agreement for the modification of a final decree by the parties, ratified by the judge, without a petition being filed, is not a case separate and apart from the original case; therefore, the collection of a docket fee is not authorized for its filing.

An agreement by the parties, not ratified by the judge, would not constitute a case separate and apart from the original case. Moreover, parties to a decree may not change or modify the decree merely by agreement between the parties. *Mullis v. Caldwell,*280 So.2d 558, 50 Ala.App. 508.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Steven K. SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 80-KH-2747.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Steven K. Smith, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Terrebonne.

Denied. Relator must apply first to district court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                              MAMMATECH CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Mammatech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KB for the period ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary
Bailey Sellers, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


By:   /s/ Mary Bailey Sellers                           Dated: November 25, 2009
      -----------------------
     Mary Bailey Sellers
     Title: Chief Financial Officer

     This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALL ELEME NTS INSURANCE RESTORATION a/a/o MICHAEL AND

TAMMY MCFARLANE

, Appellant,

v.

FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a FRONTLINE

HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2294

[ January 4, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Janet Croom , Judge; L.T. Case No. 562016CA002096

.

Scott Millard of Cohen Grossman, P.A., Maitland, and Gray Proctor of

Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Orlando, fo r appellant.

Monica B. Sablon of Sheehe & Associates, P.A., Miami, and Jay M. Levy

of Jay M. Levy, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, L EVINE and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.125 Resolution of complaints in a Complaints Tracking Module. ( a ) *Definitions.* For the purposes of this section, the terms have the following meanings: *Assignment date* is the date CMS assigns a complaint to a particular MA organization in the Complaints Tracking Module.
*Complaints Tracking Module means* an electronic system maintained by CMS to record and track complaints submitted to CMS about Medicare health and drug plans from beneficiaries and others.
*Immediate need complaint means* a complaint involving a situation that prevents a beneficiary from accessing care or a service for which they have an immediate need. This includes when the beneficiary currently has enough of the drug or supply to which they are seeking access to last for 2 or fewer days.
*Urgent complaint means* a complaint involving a situation that prevents a beneficiary from accessing care or a service for which they do not have an immediate need. This includes when the beneficiary currently has enough of the drug or supply to which they are seeking access to last for 3 to 14 days.
( b ) *Timelines for complaint resolution* — ( 1 ) Immediate need complaints . The MA organization must resolve immediate need complaints within 2 calendar days of the assignment date.
( 2 ) *Urgent complaints.* The MA organization must resolve urgent complaints within 7 calendar days of the assignment date.
( 3 ) *All other complaints.* The MA organization must resolve all other complaints within 30 calendar days of the assignment date.
( 4 ) *Extensions.* Except for immediate need complaints, urgent complaints, and any complaint that requires expedited treatment under §§ 422.564(f) or 422.630(d), if a complaint is also a grievance within the scope of §§ 422.564 or 422.630 and the requirements for an extension of the time to provide a response in §§ 422.564(e)(2) or 422.630(e)(2) are met, the MA organization may extend the timeline to provide a response.
( 5 ) *Coordination with timeframes for grievances, PACE service determination requests, and PACE appeals.* When a complaint under this section is also a grievance within the scope of §§ 422.564, 422.630, or 460.120, a PACE service determination request within the scope of § 460.121, or a PACE appeal within the definition of § 460.122, the MA organization must comply with the shortest applicable timeframe for resolution of the complaint.
( c ) *Timeline for contacting individual filing a complaint.:* Regardless of the type of complaint received, the MA organization must attempt to contact the individual who filed a complaint within 7 calendar days of the assignment date.
[89 FR 30820, Apr. 23, 2024]
#### Ralph H. Gibson *v.*Board of Examiners of Embalmers of the State of Connecticut.

Maltbie, C. J., Avery, Brown, Jennings and Ells, Js.

Argued April 14

decided May 22, 1942.

*136
      *Harry H. Lugg,*with whom, on the brief, was *Donald C. Fisk,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Thomas J, Conroy,*assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was *Francis A. Pallotti,*attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

This case involves the same principles of law as those fully considered in *Hart*v. *Board of Examiners of Embalmers,*decided at this term, and is governed thereby. The fact that this was an appeal while the *Hart*case was *an*action for a declaratory judgment does not affect this conclusion. The defendant admits that the plaintiff is qualified and refused the license on the ground that it had no power to issue one to him.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to enter judgment sustaining the appeal and directing the board to issue a license as funeral director to the plaintiff as of the date when his application was refused.