The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-21 00:00:00

BREAD.

The prices of wheaten bread in the metropolis are from.
Bid to 9d , of household do., 7d to.Bd per 41b loaf.

AIDES AND SKINS.

Market hides, 561 b to Glib, 3d to 31d ; 611 b to 721 b, 3id to
31d ; 721 b to 801 b, 31d to 4d ; SOlb to 881 b, 4d to 41d;
881 b to Nib, 4ld to 54; 9Glb to 1041 b, 5d to sd. Horse
hides, Os to lOs Od ; calf skins, light 2s Od to 4s M ; do. full,
6s Od to Os Od ; polled sheep, Os 04 to lOs Gd ; half-breds,
Gs Sd to 8s Od; Downs, 5s 3d to Gs 3d; lambs, Os Od to
Os Od ; shoarlings, Os Od to Os .

HAY MARKETS.

SMITIMELD.—Meadow hay, £2 5s to £5 ; clover, £3 10s
to £5 12s 6d ; and straw, £1 lOs to £1 ISs Od per load.
A slow demand.

CUMBERLAND.—MeaIow hay, £2 53 to £5 Os; clove)
do., £3 103 to £5 15s; and straw, £1 83 to £1 163 per load
Trade 910 w.

WIIITECHAPEL.—Meadow hay, .£2 5s to 15 Oa; clove),
lOs to £5 15s Od ; and straw, I} 8i to £1 16s per load.
A. slow trade.

TILE WEATHER.

PROBABLE BEFORE TUESDAY.
North Britain W. to N. and E. ; fine, light, moderate,
or fresh.
Ireland N.W. to N. and E. ; similar to the above.
Central Variable light breezes, chiefly N.E. to E.
East Coast
South England N,N.E. to E. ; fine, moderate to fresh.

7HE YALVERTON CASE.

This case came before Lord Ardmillan in the
County Session for debate on the proof. k
Mr. 'Fraser said—There seemed to him to be •EiX
difficult objections in this case, In one point of
view it might be said that there were no less than
40 or 50 objectionse,but they were capable of being
all embraced under six heads. The first of these
objections related to the question of ancestry and
the previous life of the pursuer. An immense mass
of evidence bad been led at Manchester, chiefly in
order to show that Mrs.' Yelverton's mother was
not of illustrious lineage, and that the pursuer had
therefore no right to the qualities--at !east on the
mother's side—of pure blood. This seemed to him
to be the staple of the ,hole 'Hoof of the defen-
der. ;The pursuer's father scans to have been a
gentleman of family, •but her mother, according
to the proof, had sprung -from the plebeian race.
He obj, eied to this as utterly irrelevant, because
the law said that a person `even of the lambi( st
rank was as much entitled to justice es one of the.
-most exalted lineage, and, he, therefore, could not
I •
i tell what that had to do with, the case. In the
proof they had also declared the history of
.the
pursuer's courtship with Dr. Alsep, who is a
brother of Mrs. Thelwall, which took place' years
ego; He objected to this as being irrelevant, and
contended that it should be struck out altogether
from the proof—upon this ground, that it raised.
an issue which had nothing to do with the case be-
fore the court. To answer the evidence on the other
side would require an immense body of proof to he.
led, and it would be just as reasonable to lead.
proof to show that Major Yelverton had been a
gentleman of most immoral life as to lead proof
to show that old Mr. and Mrs. Longworth were not
married. The proof led to prove whether or not
Theresa Longworth was married did not affect the
question at issue. He could have understood the
case if the defender had said the pursuer had de-
ceived him by representing herself to be possessed
of qualities of mind which she did not possess—that
she was wealthy, or that sho had possessions which
she had not; but it had long been established by
the laws of all countries that these circumstances
were not essential to marriage, and that deceit in
reference to these qualities did not constitute a
ground of nullity of marriage. Proof had been led to
attempt to show that old Mr. and Mrs. Longworth
were not married, but if this had been the case,he
held that an illegitimate child had as much right
to justice as a legitimate one. He maintained that
it would be a great waste of time and money, and
moreover be a great hardship if he were compelled
to lead counter proof to show that the old Long-
worths were mulled.

Lord Ardmillan said the pursuer was certainly
as much entitled to justice if she were illegitimate
as if she were legitimate. If the lady pursuer chose
to begin her case by calling a witness to prove a
certain thing, it was perfectly competent for the de-
fender to lead counter proof.

Mr. Fraser said the first witness called by the
pursuer was called for the purpose of proving her
identity.

Mr. Gordon—Then she is a myth. (A laugh.)
Lord Ardmillan said one party could not possibly
be allowed to lead evidence as to a fact without the
other party being allowed to contradict it. He did
not thinks however, that the matter was of tha
slightest consequence to either side.

Mr. Fraser said it was of some consequence to
him, in so far as he would require to go to Man-
chester to get up proof to contradict the defender's
proof, which would cost a great deal of trouble and.
expense.

Lord Ardmillan said the question about the
pedigree of the lady, and whether her father and
mother were married, appeared to him to have
nothing to do with this case, and he would have
had no hesitation in refusing proof on these points
had it not been for what the defender had done.

Mr. Fraser said if the pursuer had committed an
irregularity, it was the duty of the Court to have
eheclud it. He held that when the evidence for
the pursuer went on to deal with the lineage of the
lady, whether the elder Longworths were married,
whether the brothers were in trade, and whether
the grandmother kept a shop, the Court ought to
have prevented the introduction of such stuff into the
proof. The whole object of the defender's proof
seemed to be nothing else than to throw dirt upon
the pursuer. He -considered the question as to the
lady's lineage to be nonsense from beginning to end.
The only question with him was whether Major
Yelverton had consented to marry her or not.
He was willing to withdraw the evidence in tho
29th part of the condescendence, and also the evi-
dence of the Countess of Prinnsay ; but he would
still maintain that the pursuer en the father's side
was a lady of ancient family. The second objection
to the proof made by Mr. Fraser was to the evi-
dence of Mr. Tippets, on the ground of his having
acted in the agency for Mrs. Forbes Yelverton. A
number of other objections were referred to by Mr.
Fraser and withdrawn.

Mr. Miller repudiated the statement made by Mr.
Fraser that the evidence got up by the defender
was got up for the purpose of throwing dirt upon
the pursuer. He held that, when the pursuer put
certain things in issue she must abide by these,
and if the pursuer, through the evidence of
the Countess of Prinnsay, chose to make herself a
great lady in the record, and thereby put her cha-
racter in issue, was it to be said that the defender
must not inquire whether the statements of the
pursuer's witnesses were true P He granted, if
there hai been no such witnesses brought forward
as the pursuer choose to bring it would not have
been competent for the defender to have entered
upon these inquiries. They were not inquiring
whether certain facts were true, but they were
about to inquire if the statements which the
pursuer makes in reference to the footing on
which the pursuer and defender were at a
particular time were or were not true. If the
matter was one of doubt, was it nothing that the
defender would be able to say—your representa-
tions are misrepresentations; you are not the person
you pretend to be? The pursuer could not ask the
Court to give her the benefit of the doubt in that
case. In regard to the objections brought by Mr.
Fraser against the evidence of Mr. Tippets, he con-
tended that it came too late, as the witness was
sworn and the explanation began before the ob-
jection referred to was advanced. He thought
therefore that it could not be maintained. He de-
nied that Mr. Tippets had been an agent in this
case, and said that it was probable he gained his
knowledge of it by means of the public prints.

At this stage the case was adjourned till Monday,
at 10 o'clock.

~,
.::
;.

fs

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 20.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Creswell and a Special Jury.)
GETHIN V. GETHIN (THE QUEEN'S PROCTOR INTER-

VENING).
The hearing of this extraordinary case was re-
sumed this day.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.O , addressed the jury on behalf
of the petitioner, Lady Gethin, who, he said, had
proved a case of combined adultery and cruelty on
the part of her husband when the case was tried
before the Court. The Attorney-General had not
laid before the jury even a faint outline of the facts
connected with the petition which Lady Gethin had
brought forward, and which, he contended, dissi-
pated the charge of any collusion between her and
her husband. It appeared that Lady Gethin was
the daughter of a highly-respectable family named
Poley, who had formerly resided in Suffolk, and she
was married in 1846. At that time her family con-
sisted of an aged mother, since deceased, a maiden
sister, and her brother, Captain Poley; and the
gentleman with whom she was accused of having
committed adultery was an acquaintance of ten
years' standing. That gentleman was an industri-
ous, but not a professional artist, which led to the
frequent visits of Lady Gethin, in conjunction with
the facts that his child and the children of Lady
Gethin were acquaint& for some time. Lady Gethin
lived with her husband untillBs3, and during that
time she gave birth to the two children who are
still living. Her husband proved to be a man of
the most dissolute habits, and had run out his
estate, retaining only a nominal property in Ire.
land. He spent from time to time the money which
Lady Gethin received, and was dependent on her
family, whom he bullied, for the means of actual
support. How he lived at present was unknown
to his client ; but one fact was known, and that
was, that he was as penniless a beggar as any in
the street. If the Attorney-General had pursued
his researches further he would have told the
jury that taking into account the situation of
Sir Richard Gethin, he not being pressed for the
payment ofi costs, was not any proof of collusion
on the part of Lady Gethin. Proceeding with
the history of this unfortunate lady. It appeared
that in 1853, in consequence of his systematic
ill-
usage and immoral conduct, she was compelled to
discard him from her society, since which period,
with the exception of two occasions, she had lived,
up till 1860, with her mother, whose house was her
sole residence: The first of these occasions was dur-
ing the Russia war, when Sir Richard Gethin in-
formed her that he had obtained some situation in
the Crimea, and expressed a wish to see her. She
then joined him for a week at Calais, and on his
return she again went to him at Southsea in 1856,
but she was again forced to leave him. Lady Gethin
contemplated obtaining a divorce years since, and
in 1854 a case was submitted to that eminent civi-
lian, Dr. Addams, on her behalf, but he considered
that she had condoned the misconduct of her hus-
band. By the temporary cohabitation of 1856 the
acts previous to that period had been condoned, and
could be revived only by subsequent misconduct ;
and at the time when Sir Richard Gethin presented
his petition, in June, 1859, to which she and Mr.
Ellis both appeared, she was not in possession of
facts to establish such revival. But shortly after-
wards the newspapers made her acquainted wiih:the
fact that a suit had been tried in this court in which
Sir Richard Gethin was the co-respondent. That
was the case of Leatham v. Leatham and Gethin ;
and it appeared that during the absence of the hus-
band, who was employed in India, Sir Richard
Gethin had formed an immoral intercourse with his
wife, and which resulted in his obtaining a divorce.
Lady Gethin filed her petition, and, notwithstand-
ing the comments of the Attorney-General, it was
not extraordinary she should adopt that proceeding,
even though her husband had already commenced a
suit for a divorce. With regard to the suit of Sir
Richard Gethin, it was regarded by her family as
an attempt on his part to extort money. The learned
counsel then went in detail through the evidence
adduced on behalf of the Crown, which, he con-
tended, though it might prove indiscretion on the
part of Lady Gethin, utterly failed to establish her
criminality.
Mrs. Robinson, examinel by Dr. Spinks—l have
been living for 32 years in the family of Lady Gethin.
I know Mr. Ellis for about nine years. He visited
Mrs. Poley when she was living at Hampton.
Sir R. Gethin was intimate with him also. It was
in 1855 that Mrs. Poley removed to Ladbroke-
square. I knew of Mr. Ellis living at Victoria-ter-
race, Notting -hill. I have called on him there fre-
quently, and was admitted by the servant or Miss
Louisa Denny. I have gone out with him, Lady
Gethin, and the children, and I have sometimes
taken meals at his place. One of Lady Gethin's
children is about eight, aad the other five
years of age. In 1855 the health of :qrs. Polev was
declining. The eldest boy almost always accom-
panied Lady Gethin in her visits to Mr. Ellis, and
sometimes the younger boy also went with her.
Sometimes the maid fetched one of the children
from Mr. Ellis's while the other remained. L idy
Gethin returned to Ladbroke-square at different
times, and occasionally as late as 11 o'clock at
night. The dinner-hour at Ladbroke-square was
one o'clock, and Lady Gethin used to dine with the
family at that hour. Lady Gethin occupied the top
room at the front of the house, which looked towards
the square, and not to Victoria-terrace, which was
at the back of the house. Lady Gethin is about 35
years old. I have never seen any romping ou the part
of Lady Gethin—it was not her character. She is
merry, except when she is in tears at the recollec•
tion of her husband's ill-treatment.

In cross-examination by the Attorney-General
the witness stated that Mrs. Poley and her family
removed from Little Hampton to Albion-street,
Bayswater-road, Cadogan-place, and thence to Lad-
broke-square. Mr. Ellis lived at Little Hampton
when Mrs. Poley was staying there. Sir Richard
Gethin and Lady Gethin were at Little Hampton
at the same time, and Sir Richard Gethin appeared
to be on good terms with Mr. Ellis. When Mr.
Ellis was at Victoria-terrace he used to call at Lad
broke-square, and Mrs. Poley saw him when she
was well enough.

By Mr. Mac-aulay—Captain Poley and all Lady
Gethin's family were very friendly with Mr. Ellis.
Capt. George Frederick Poley examined by Mr.
Macaulay—Mr.Eliis was on familiar terms with
myself and family previous to my mother removing
to Ladbroke-square. I was frequently at my
mother's at the latter place. I knew first of Mr.
Ellis living in Victoria-terrace before the end of
July. I called on him there frequently while he
was occupying the room on the second floor. I used
to call as frequently as two or three times a day,
and Lady Gethin frequently went with me there.
Mr. Ellis and I went out frequently together, the
children accompanying us sometimes. Shortly be-
fore my marriage, in August, I occupied a bedroom
behind that of my sister, Lady Gethin. I think it
would be difficult to distinguish any person at the
window of Mr. Ellis's from my mother's in Lad-
broke-square.
Cross-examined by Sir F. Slade—l used to take
my sister to. Mr. Ellis's, but not into his bedroom.
I took her into the drawing-room, and sometimes
went by myself into his bedroom. I remember call-
ing at his place one morning and being told he was
in bed. Lady Gethin said, " What a lazy fellow
he is," and I said, " I will pull or rouse him out of
bed," and I went up to his bedroom. My atten-
tion was drawn to this circumstance by the speech of
the Attorney-General yesterday. I then spoke to
the solicitor of Lady Gethin. I never went with
my sister to Mr. Ellis's but once while he was in
sncreora. I have never seen my sister paint, but I
_lave seen her draw. I have seen Mr. Ellis give
lessons to children in drawing, but I never saw him
give any lessons to Lady Gethin. I did not know
Mr. Ellis before I was living at Little Hampton,
and then he was introduced to me by Sir Richard
Gethin. I am related to Mr. Ellis by marriage,
but there was no previous relationship between us.
Mr. Preston, scilicitor for Lady Gethin, examined
by Dr,
have had the conduct of this suit
from the commencement. In consequence of infor-
mation.
Gethin, and hatlnade inquiries respecting Sir
petition. I also haaila answer
.. prepared for his
a petition on her behalf,
and both proceedingsG Ezra under the direction
of counsel. Sir R.
ordered to give
further particulars, but I Tidnwas
not ever remember
having received them from
There was
to his petition was filed. The answer
no ar-
rangement with Sir R. Gethin on myP art
for the discontinuance of his suit, and I instructedf
counsel to take the necessary steps on behalf
Lady Gethin
in respect to the suit. Sir °
Richard
obtained leave to renew his petition, which he did
not do. I succeeded in getting the petition (Hs_
missed with costs. We never got the costs, and
understood that he was utterly witnout money. I
do not know of any condition not to press for costs
if this suit of Lady Gethin's were not opposed, or if
it were successful.
Mr. Francis Ellis examined by Mr. Macaulay.—
I was co-respondent in the suit of Sir Richard
Gethin. I never authorised my solicitor not to
exact costs in the event of that suit being with-
drawn. I was a widower, living at Little Hampton,
when I made the acquaintance of the Poley family,
and I was on intimate terms with Sir Richard
Gethin. I was stopping with my brother at
Brockley, in Hamrshire, before I went to Victoria-
terrace. I heard a portion of the evidence of Miss
Louisa Dennys as to Lady Gethin having gone
once into my bedroom. I was then up and dressed.
When I occupied the one room it was my habit to
have my breakfast there. I used generally to dine
at
an hotel in London. It was not true that Lady
Gethin used to be at my dinner table except when
I dined Out. At my dinner table I used to have tea

at one end of the room, for my child and Lady
Gethin's children. It was not true that on any
occasion Lady Gethin sat on my knee. She never
had her legs in my lap, or her arms round my neck.
I never had my arms round her waist. Caroline
Wilson, the servant, had left Miss Dennys a few
weeks before me. She left in Consequence of my
complaints of her inattention, slovenliness, dirt, and
rudeness. I complained of having lost a book while
she was there. It was " Abercrombie on the Intel-
lectual Powers." Miss Dennys never told me that
she said she saw Lady Gethin sitting on my knee.
I gave Miss Dennys notice to quit. There never
was any improper intercourse between me
and Lady Gethin. It is untrue that I .
ever kissed her. I held a commission the
army, and afterwards a military post in her
Majesty' household. As a rule my boy slept
with me, except when I moved down stairs.
Lady Gethin never drew in my bedroom. She
was never in my bedroom except on the occasion I
have alladed to. When I was leaving, Miss Dennys
asked me to recommend her lodgers, and I said I
certainly would as soon as she got her drains re-
paired, and the nasty smell of which I complained
removed. Not a single word of dissatisfaction was
expressed towards me by the Misses Dennys, and
they pressed me to stop. I always made a point of
going to church twice on Sundays while at Notting-
hill. I used to read the Lessons to Miss Dennys
after I returned from evening service, but I never
read prayers to her. I was like a brother with Cap-
tain Poley. I continued on terms of intimate
familiarity with Lady Gethin until Sir Richard
Gethin made a charge against me.
Cross-examined by Sir :F. Slade—l introduced
myself to the Poley family at Little Hampton. I
1 had no business at Notting-hill. I wrote to Lady
Gethin to take lodgings for me there. I never
represented to Miss Dennys that she was my
cousin. It is true that she went with me to the
lodgings on my arrival, to show me the room.
I gave her port wine on one occasion, when she
was suffering from nervous head-ache, to which
she was subject. It was on that occasion she
was in my room, and she remained only about
two minutes. I remember sending on one occa-
sion for a pill and dose for her. She dined
several times with me while I was at Notting-
hill, but she did not make a practice of doing
so three or four times a week. I dined about
once a fortnight at Ladbroke-square. I had no
other business at Victoria-terrace than to be in
the company of Lady Gethin. She used some-
times to mend my shirts, and I used to
put my linen out to air in her presence. Miss
Dennys never said anything respecting the neigh-
bours talking about Lady Gethin being so much
with me.
This closed the whole of the evidence in the
case, the hearing of which will be resumed to-
morrow (this day).

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
"ESSAYS AND REVIEWS."

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP
OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR. ROWLAND WILLIAMS,

D D.

Dr. Deane resumed his argument this morning
with the indictment upon the Bth article, which
was to the effect that the defendant had advisedly
maintained and affirmed that in the bocks of the
Old Testament, with the exception of one or two
doubtful passages, there was n o e vidence of their being
inspired, and no evidence of the progncstication of
future persons and events. To meet this accusation
he quoted Bishop Louth's " Preliminary Disserta-
tion," with the view of bringing Dr. Williams
within the case referred t ) in " Heath v. Burder,"
that a man might not be punished to-clay for opi
nions that had passed unnoticed and unchallenged
by persons in authority in former ages, and also to
show that criticism of the text was an open ques
tion, and that the very text itse:f as we received
it, and still more as the Hebrew original now was,
was but a translation of other and older documents,
and in many respects a faulty translation. They
were, in fact, dealing with the translation of a
translation, and the object of the prosecution was
to fetter the true meaning of the original book, and
the darkest ages of Popish tyranny could not have
attempted to impose on the human understanding
heavier fetters than this. To the same book he re-
ferred to the distinction between what was in the
Church genuine, authentic, and canonical. Genuine
was there defined to be that which was written by
the person whose name it bore, " authentic, having
authority r and a writing might be genuine though
not authentic, or authentic though the word genuine
could not be applied to it. Apccryphal seemed to be
opposed to authentic—a writing, in fact, which was
disallowed—and canonical was used in divinity to
mean part of the canons or collections of writings
of divine authority. With regard to the interpreta-
tion of the word " inspired," Dr. Hay said some
men had held that every word of Scripture was
inspired, and therefore the sacred writers were
mere instruments. This Warburton called
" organic inspiration," and "passionless machines"
were the words used by De. Williams, and
objected to as heretical. He should like to
know how it could be heretical to speak
of passionless machines, and not heretical to speak
of organic inspiration. The passage quoted in the
Bth article charged was asserted to be contrary to
the 6th Article, which was, " Of the sufficiency of
Holy Scriptures for salvation." Now, every article
used in religion was not affirmative, but negative.
This article was directed against a well-known
existing error, but was not directed against all
questions which might hereafter arise in the Church,
and it was directed, as every commentator had
agreed, against traditions introduced by the Church
of Rome. The 7th Article was " Upon the Old
Testament ;" and he could not find one single word
in the passages extracted from Dr. Williams's essay
which could be regarded as in any way opposed to
that article. Warburton had written that the
doctrine of future rewards and punishments was not
at first known among the Jews, and in that article
the 17th Article was not contravened, because the
question raised was one which had not in that sense
been considered by those who drew up or the Crown
which ratified the articles.

The Judge—Did I understand you distinctly to
say that Dr. Williams has never denied the two
senses of prophecy ?
Dr. Deane said Dr. Williams had never denied
the sense of prophecy in its fulfilment—that was in
its secondary sense. And upon this point of the in-
spiration of prophecy he referred to the passage in
St. Luke's Gospel, that it behoved Christ to suffer
and to rise from the dead on the third day, there
being no prophecy in the Old Testament in which
the rising on the fourth day was foretold. He did
not throw theslightest doubt on the 24th chapter of
St. Luke, but this only showed the danger of taking
a passage which the Church had appointed to be
read on a particular day, and holding that every
word of that passage was to be judged in its literal
sense, without any examination whether it was so
written or not. In the same way there was no pro-
phecy known distinctly announcing that Christ
should be called a Nazarene, and the Hebrew word
which had been translated " Nazarene" might be,
as had been affirmed, translated with the same
accuracy a branch or flower.
The Judge hoped it would not be for a moment
understood that he was going to try these grave
questions of divinity. Of course it was quite open
to Dr. Deane to show that such and such opinions
had been entertained, without reproof, in the Church
by eminent divines ; and if the learned counsel
showed that his client had only entertained the
same opinions, it would bring him into the position
in the case of " Burder v: Heath."

Dr. Deane was certainly not going to ask the
Court to pass judgment on any one of them ; but he
desired to show that the opinions condemned in the
case of Dr. Williams had been held even with ap-
probation by others before him. The 9th article
charged Dr. Williams in the first place with " dis-
tinguishing the man David from the Book of
David," and in bringing the latter as low as the
reign of the Epiphanes the author only followed the
admitted necessities of the case. But the whole
passage quoted gave the explanation of the opinion
not of Dr. Williams, but of Baron Bunsen, who dis-
tinguished the man David from the book. The
date of the book, however, proved the position as-
serted, and surely a clergyman whose knowledge
led him to that conclusion was not to be placed in
the position that he must contradict his knowledge
to be convicted of the grossest ignorance before his
congregation, or must render himself liable to a
charge of heresy. Dr. Williams, again, had never
said that Jonah was not an historical person ; and
, not only had he not said so, but had distinctly
stated the contrary in his sermons. Another charge
was that he had said that the Book of Jonah, in-
corporated in the Old Testament, was never written
by him. He (Dr. Deane) could produce a flood of
authorities that in. another instance the book was
npoetntwartietataehn baoyutlhdar ii)oetrsoi n whose name it took. The
been entirely written
by Moses, for it contained"
an accountofs hisa heretic
death,
and was the pErson to beraega
tehreo the
Bf
who disputed that Moses w
whole ? Nobody would contend thvaritt
ook
of Ruth was written by Ruth, and he would
ask who wrote the Book of Job ? But Dr. Wil-
liams had never said that the Book of Jonah was not
written by Jonah. Taking the 10th article, the
indictment was misunderstood, miscited, and mis-
charged, and the opinion expressed was one that
there was no authority whatever for. Dr. Williams
had never said that the authority of Scripture was
not binding upon the Church, nor n
ot part had he said
of theaidthat
the Epistle to the Hebrews was
gßounnstehne
thought Church.
What Holy Sheer i
hpatdurseasidanwd a st
uh
ca
ht
Bbianrdoinn