alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
If/NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D C.

THE NRO STAFF

June 29, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with Mr. Ratliff

On June 26 I had a brief a informal conversation at

the EOB with Mr. Rob Roy Ratliff of the 40 Committee. I

learned that the 5 June Kissinger memorandum was indeed

written by Mr. Ratliff. He feels that both he and the

principals of the 40 Committee are unaware of the relative

effectiveness and usefulness of the collection of the U. S.

Reconnaissance, therefore he is apprehensive each month

when the 40 Committee must approve the U. S. covert

activities. I gathered during the course of conversation

that Mr. Ratliff was not aware of the magnitude of the

study that he had inspired. He stated that one of the

reasons for requesting such a study was that the 40

Committee has disapproved certain activities at the

national level but from time to time has witnessed reprocussions from a tactical reconnaissance activity which

had been approved by a local theater commander. I believe

he was referring to the Algerian coastal flights.

I told Mr. Ratliff that given the short suspense date

on the study he was likely to receive a great deal of

subjectivity in the response.

I relayed the gist of our conversation to Dr. Martin

since the IC Staff was making arrangements to get together

with Mr. Ratliff.

MAW MOM

ICOODOLII OF

COI

camm ixolunaist igLiong

GORY 112 COCLAISIFY ON IOW Oa.

CONTROL No_intilamaj,

CONY OF COPIES

VAG F 1 OF, 1 PAGES
• .....11A11411---111111101101111151-

(SrNATIONALRECONNAISSANCEOFFICE niunummunn

WASHINGTON. D.C.

THE NRO STAFF March 26, 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. PLUMMER

SUBJECT: Exchange Between the Press and ASD(PA)

With regard to the most recent exchange between the press

and the ASD (Public Affairs), we believe that Mr. Friedheim

did a creditable job in fending off the questions. However,

the exchange points out a latent problem which, although

having no basis in fact, could be made to grow out of proportion by the media. In other words, should your association

with the NRP be acknowledged, an openly debated defense of

your conflict of interest safeguards could occur. This debate,

in turn, could draw out the program structure and the modus

operandi of decision making and contracting for the NRP. A

rational security safeguarding would be difficult.

We think that it would be useful for you in your conversations with SecDef to point out the need for holding the

line insofar as further identifying the DNRO and the organization. If pressures should develop along the lines which

precipitated the acknowledgement statement which Mr. Friedheim

has used, we think that such pressures should be subjected

to evaluation and not to an ad hoc deliberation. Meanwhile

a staunch "no comment" and "no discussion" policy vis-a-vis

the IRO or satellite reconnaissance should be continued.
Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101966 

Tn.') ~ ~ ~r.:.v~·~"s 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

~ATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

1"""111111111111111111111111111111""111111111111111111111111 1400024402D 

THE NRO STAFF 

'1A "<DLE VIA 

! V ;:'"n '\ ~.! j ~ i-h'jJc~a'i 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

23 June 1967 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: De -Control of "the fact of" Satellite Reconnaissance 

Mr. Reber saw Mr. Helms on 20 June and briefed General 

Berg, Dr. Flax, and me today on his experiences. He said that 

after talking for about three minutes he was challenged by the 

DCI, who said, "Just what terrible things will ha ppen to the NRO 

if this decontrol goes through? I've had a whole series of special 

pleaders march through telling me the world is going to end. What 

specific problems do you see, Jim? If To which, Mr. Reber says 

he had no reply. 

Dr. Flax told us, then, that he had seen Mr. Vance yesterday 

and had briefed him, hurriedly, on the disclosure problem. Mr. 

Vance said that change was inevitable, that "this too must change, " 

and that we must learn to accommodate to change. Dr. Flax 

inte:rpJ:ets this as perhaps being based on "a signal from the White 

House. " He then told Mr. Vance that NRO management would 

certainly be much more cumbersome outside the BYEMAN environment. Mr. Vance looked surprised and said, liThe management must not be allowed to change. " 

There is a consensus that there is no point in fighting this 

problem. I do not understand how the defeatist attitude developed. 

\Ve have not one shred of hard data re Restow, "the White House, " 

or inexorable forces beyond our control. Yet, there seems to be 

;-.tn air of relief on the part of persons who advance this hypothesis. 

is the community actually tired of shoring up BYEMAN security? 

is five years best one can expect as the lifetime of any special 

security arrangement? What are the motives/pressures? 

TOP SECRET - EXCLUDED F'ROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

000 DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

CONTROL No_In_t_e_r_n_a_I __ _ 

COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101966 

-
HAN~lE VI~ 

r.? \f r.~. /; r~ ~~ .J. i-nll''''.i. CONTROL SYSTEM 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101966 

~li:E 

tiA~iDlE VIA 

BY ["~~~ PI M . LiVltiij~ 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

This has been a baffling month, on the security front. Perhaps 

the next move should be via N ASC or Kohler to the summit; it 

would certainly be the final move! 

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMAT!C REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

\ 

, ~, 

d- (, 

PAUL E. WORTHMAN 

Colonel, USAF· 

Internal CONTROL NO. _______ _ 

COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

PAGE ___ OF ____ PAGES 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101966 

-
# CRP Cost Estimation

# CRP Practices and Costs

# Signature Sheet
July 2022

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Constructed Wetland (Code 656) 

An artificial wetland ecosystem with hydrophytic vegetation

for biological treatment of water. 

Practice Information 

Constructed wetlands are used to treat wastewater and

contaminated runoff from agricultural processing, livestock,

and aquaculture facilities or for improving the quality of

storm water or other water flows including drainage water. 

For the constructed wetland to work properly, inlet control is provided to prevent debris from entering

the wetland, and outlet control is provided to maintain appropriate water depths for wetland vegetation

and the design hydraulic retention time. 

For waste management systems, a constructed wetland is considered a discharging practice, and

therefore, the discharge must either be captured elsewhere in the wastewater treatment system or

discharged to the ecosystem in a manner consistent with discharge permit requirements. 

Wetland plants are established that are suitable for local climatic conditions and tolerant of the

contaminated flow the wetland is designed to attenuate. Invasive or nonnative species that could

become a problem in the native habitat are not used. 

A constructed wetland will require maintenance over the expected life of the practice. 

Common Associated Practices 

Constructed Wetland (Code 565) is commonly applied with conservation practices such as Waste

Storage Facility (Code 313), Waste Recycling (Code 633), Nutrient Management (Code 590), and

Solid/Liquid Waste Separation Facility (Code 632). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                  PRIDE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X


     The schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  financial  statements for the six months ended May 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              nov-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 dec-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   may-31-1998
<CASH>                                         6,174 
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,243,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    25,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         31,251,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,799,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,535,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          17,688,146
<BONDS>                                        10,402,038
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,833
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,442,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,535,318
<SALES>                                        7,060,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,060,474
<CGS>                                          2,922,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,372,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,101,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (413,708)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (413,708)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (413,708)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.15)

        

</TABLE>
#### Miller, Plaintiff, vs. Hayeland and others, Defendants. Hayeland, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. Miller, Respondent: Hayeland, by guardian *ad litem,*Defendant and Appellant.

For the appellants: *Gold & McCann,*attorneys, and *Ray T. McCann,*guardian *ad litem*of Frank Hayeland, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan*and *Coleman & McCauley,*all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### Evans *v.*Kennedy.

The action of trespass and false imprisonment is the usual and proper remedy for one who is held in bondage, to try his right of freedom. When the Plaintiff in an acti'-n of this kind is not ready, and obtains a cout-miaoce, the Defendant must give bond and sureties, for the Plamtff’s appearance at the next term, and, in the mean time, to treat nim with humanity: and, by Haywood Judge, also to allow Ph.inuff time to procure evidence-, but Williams, Judge, thought otherwise.

The Plaintiff was a person of colour, who claimed his freedom, and was detained in slavery by the Defendant. The Plaintiff and Defendant had agreed that an action should be instituted without process, and an issue made lip *:n*try the *fact;*ami some doubt now arising in regard to (he proper form of action, and of the issue to be made up. iney referred it to the court to direct the proper form of action and issue.

*El per cm iam*

Wirriams & Haywood, Judges

The action used mi such occasions for eight or ten years past, is the action of trespass and false imprisonment; to which the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff is a slave, and cannot maintain an action ; ami to this, the Plaintiff replies, he is not a slave $ and an issue is made up upon this point and tried by a jury. The issue was (hen made up in the present case accordingly, and the evidence not being competent to prove the Plaintiff’s freedom, the *488court recommended the withdrawing a juror*-which wao agreed to ; and then the Plaintiff's counsel moved, that Defendant might give bond and sureties to permit the Plaintiff to appear at next term, and to treat him with humanity in the mean time.

*Etper curiam*— This has often been ordered before on similar occasions, and is the usual practice where the trial is delayed till a succeeding term — and it was so ordered accordingly in the present case.

Judge Haywood — I think the bond usually given goeth. further — to allow the Plaintiff time to collect evidence and procure denositions, if necessary. Judge lv 11,1,1 ams-—1 do not recollect the Defendant was ever bound to that: it would produce a loss of the Plaintiff’s service, which in the. etent of a verdict against him, the owner could not be compensated for. So the bond was ordered to be taken as above.

*Note.*— Vide *Gober*v. *Gober.*2 *Hay.*127. *Parker - Ib.*345. Negroes are presumed to be slaves till the contrary appears ,- not so of persons of mined blood. *Gober*v. *Gober,*2 *Hay.*170. *Scott v. Williams,*1 *Dev. Rep.*376. This last case also decides Hint, under par-ticuhr citcimisUnces, substantial damages may be given in actions of this nature.
Redacted by DLW •

MS),NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE 0011

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR 18.June 1975

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: NRP Support R&D Program

Mr. Plummer made several comments of note during the review of

the NRP Support R&D Program Review. He asked if MO General Bradburn,

Les Dirks,Rear Adm Geiger and Colonel Wheeler all agreed to the breakout.

It was explained by Colonel Rosenberg that none of those individuals

had attended the R&D review on the West Coast but had sent representatives.

It was further indicated that all of the individuals would probably

not agree with the breakout and, in fact, it might well not be possible

to get them to agree. Mr. Plummer reluctantly seemed to agree and I

pointed out that I felt in the final analysis that he, Mr. Plummer,

should be the one who approved the budget the way he saw it. Mr. Plummer

indicated to me after the meeting that he and I in particular and everyone in general should, by asking questions and making comments, attempt

to spur the. Program Office Directors to become more familiar with the

R&D Program including the activities in the other program offices.

cc: Col Wheeler

Mr. Hill

111111111111111111111k

•

WORM POONA

SCOGOULS 011.

'MGM Cint•

IMP reli

Antaglik

GORY 114 GICIARIOYI go op ouT.

•

TOP-SECIIET-

. CONTROL NO INTERNAL

COY of toms

a
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 

### PROPERTY OWNERS COMMITTEE 7 

### OF RANCHO RUIDOSO VALLEY ESTATES, 8 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, 9 

### vs. No. 29,439 10 

### COUNTY OF LINCOLN, 11 

### Defendant, 12 

### and 13 

### RABBI Y’HOSHUA COHEN, 14 

### Applicant/Intervenor-Appellant. 15 

### APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 16 

### Karen L. Parsons, District Judge 17 

### John Robert Beauvais 18 

### Ruidoso, NM 19 

### for Appellee 20 

### Rabbi Y’Hoshua Cohen 21 

### Alto, NM 22 

### Pro Se Appellant 232 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### VIGIL, Judge. 2 

### Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 3 

### proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 4 

### been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 5 

### AFFIRMED. 6 

### IT IS SO ORDERED. 7



### ___________________ _____________ 8 

### MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 9 

### WE CONCUR: 10



### ________________________________ 11 

### JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 12



### ________________________________ 13 

### TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14
Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No.333-95007, File No. 333-40466, File No. 333-69722, File No. 333-76636, File No. 333-91276, File No.333-106436, File No. 333-106946, File No. 333-117273 and File No. 333-129861) and in theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-129192) pertaining to the 1996 Equity IncentivePlan, 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Non-Employee Directors’Stock Option Plan, the 2001 Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan and the Acquisition Equity IncentivePlan of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. and to the resale from time to time of shares issued to formerstockholders of NovaScreen Biosciences Corporation, of our reports dated March 3, 2006, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc.,Caliper Life Sciences, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CaliperLife Sciences, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2005.                                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         Boston, Massachusetts
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VINC E B L AKELY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-35402 D.C . No. 4:20-c v-05168-EFS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Edwa rd F. She a , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 5, 2023 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : SC HR OEDER , HAW KINS, and C ALLAHAN, C i rc u it Judge s. Vinc e B lak e ly

a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the ALJ’ s de nia l of be ne fits. B lake ly

a sse rte d disa

bility ba se d on he aring de fe c ts, obse ssive
c om pulsive disorde r, anxie ty , de pre ssion, a nd m ood swings. 

# F IL ED JUN 7 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the ALJ’ s re je c tion of Lic e nse d

M e dic a l He a lth C o unse lor M r. She ple y ’ s opinions a s to B lake l y ’ s disa bilitie s be c a

use the y we re not c onsiste nt with or supporte d by the e vide nc e in the re c ord. The ALJ prope rly re lie d on the te stim ony

of Drs. B uitra go a

nd B rune r, and B lake ly

ha s fa ile d to show tha

t any e rror wa s c onse que ntia l to theALJ’ s ultim at e de c i sion. The ALJ re a sona

bly inte rpre te d the Division of Voc ationa l R e ha bilita tion (“ DVR ” ) re ports within the c onte xt of the re c o rd to c onc lude tha t B lake ly ’ s la c k of
suc c e ss with DVR

se rvic e s wa s like l y due to his own c hoic e s a nd tha t the DVR
re c o rds te nde d to unde rm ine som e of B lake ly ’ s sy m ptom re ports a nd m e dic a l opinions. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the ALJ’ s c le ar and c onvinc ing
re a s ons for disc o unting B lake ly ’ s sy m ptom re ports, m ost nota

bly that som e of B lake ly ’ s te stim o ny

wa s inc onsiste nt with his own prior sta te m e nts a nd othe r e vide nc e . B lake ly ha s fa ile d to show re ve rsible e rror in ste p s one or two. At ste p one , the A LJ m a de c le ar that for m uc h of the pe riod of tim e at issue B lake l y wa s not involve d in substa

ntia l ga inful a c tivity , a

nd thus did not de

ny B lake ly ’ s c la im
. B lake ly fa ils to show c onse q

ue ntia l e rror a t ste p two. Se e Burc h v
. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 682 (9th C ir. 2005).

2Fina lly , substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the finding tha

t give n B lake ly ’ s voc a tiona l fa c tors a

nd the te stim ony

from a voc at iona l e xpe rt, B lake ly would be
a ble to work in other jobs e xisting in signific ant num be rs. AFFIRM E D.

3
### Attorney Br.'an M. Sc^Jt 

# ZZ^Io-o "SI £. Co .4Hens, T 73 7-T/ 3-/9-/5" ~Plr< Sahmiji ' LJrit of /-/ GiT X am CUr-iing ~ho Vou. m reqcroA fo />n* HQ7 beaj ^bfgui • .X feeeived the Uh>it CrCq/ -Pr<g/^ V^f Co^rt of Cr'.^i^^l 

### J)pfi€c<U of 

## 7~€Koj: Oai 3-/9-75" /J~i^c^ JoLJe</ £-33-/^ avo/pM+'n^rfreS- /Jo.r03i ^ofS". /eff f/?e MenJeCSon C<o*»+h >W/. a.nJ re.hir^eJ to t~ne TDCJ-JD £ur*ej g^'-f o^ 3- 03-IF u>here. JZ lj<ks noi cxllo^eJ fo Durebase Si^^fis or \o to "ft*. f JLo,^ i,'.Ararv £?* Z'06-/f X feln/Vife/ fo /-hvi 6(>rf <9-F ^X/An^P^y, ^'cAcve / Urn U^'fi 7%-f ti^.'t US<i-l Or, At^-c/o^ • ^9£.'>, JT t^aj >00f (x)\oi~>eJ toyiS'~h He 1<K\~> =3 i, j>fgr.i of 3M.rciicuf^ 3-fcy^>/3(. T?je <Am>t /~s rto i~) Q-T4- cDi J.oct-d>o<~>r, -So no^ -T J& SXjX. M CarteS.nafie/ UJ.tU \[oC PfQqCr/>»o, £2_y_C£bX •d 3s ^_^.
/n ncJec to 

## Please n^k tie O.a-u.r'h o£ Cr.'^i/»«../Apf>e*U tor a (L^i^/m^uLe. fe^o/lr/ /o 7^<!. /we/i'wy ^T Fcj_<_t 4*J COnd"-S>O*S Q\ I<^<~J. ^ *J 

### ./Z^^l0i3£_£JCilJ_^^ Z2?_e C.Qi?-\//.:cf<0^ ^Q^ 0ht*i\ 

## j^/7. /3/W ,/ift Q.^'li^ UJt'cU uJ<xs riot Valuta?,'U/y>a_Je. uiLkk—/?c<t^re 2_£ ^e CAa^je.- _a«.oZ_C.a>ixe9,i-e^cei-^-£-^je_^.Zea_«_XgL-^je F''i(Jr»y <gf Ec_sJb-JP/-S**C&) 7%g Cs>^rf places
Ja.e a.oU-LeJs.e J
* Plox.\ 

# f 4h„-e;n vStrJe VaisuSiJZoi T^^ff-^i^ /V/A^f.7^gtfBrOFCRIMIWALAPPEALS 

# _Jr4-^,:U34i/.< %Jj-J^_iO-8J Tc^ OJ}J : : MAR 25 2015

_ £*-f*^,lJltou>Jle*-JllZJ_£±J_+^^ -E^e-c-f-o—^3jy_5j^a^-3-7JL^-C4-_Laj? *
- /

### i Ato@IAeosti76terk- .^i / 

## AJ.S.Q s/-7ce -^g /73r •^/•'•'^/ ^^^ ika^e .^.y^.ijJjLcJjJ>J3-—QMSr ^aja 4J.^—^^re-U ii

## e-^j-T^e C-QrA-j-4-Q—cxdtjjiesj—^-O2.uu3.o4-^-^-

I of <R

### 11 LJoiAcJ /.'fee t~a he a.ble. f-o t-eJechone vi^oi^, a.+ no Cos+f+o s^ ^J£A 

### this ;<; okj \<cdu must rg^,'.sfef wn^r pUaoe•*t by C<^lh'i_* %LL- 9l£>/0- ~7 %QLl or o,n to vu\*/y-'' -fextkjpr.'s-c*phone. Co£-l_- T/4>'-s' ^c^ fAf .^rt^rf T^g.-/- X Cot^/cJ Crt^ic^ct Ma -5fi Z" A? rtflp "7*^ i _Uo^C-. .Cojo

## 3i0-C££- I M ._ _ilo..b-e-e 

# /^>l^klAfn ^PVMni-O^ A JJQJ-Ua-IsJ. U-i3-<-3- JUU>M S^--JL£X5±L 

## ^-^^^.^.S.e.e—C&J-cm.,yJ—i-X—Z-SI2_2_£_

<_2 O-f cX
#### Tonstad, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Lake Superior District Power Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Sanborn, Lamoreux & Pray*of Ash-land.

For the respondent: *Alexander Wiley*and *Robert L. Wiley*of Chippewa Falls.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 24, 1929.