The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-22 00:00:00

•
~...5;%V.;. •

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 22, 1827.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EAGLE LIFE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION,
63, CORNHILL, and 10, WATERLOO-PLACE.
Established 1807.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 21.
FURNIVAL V. BOGLE,.

DISTINCT TABLES for MALE and FEMALE LIFE.
THE DIRECTORS have caused NEW
TABLES to be calculated, in which the relative
values of the lives of the two sexes are at all ages distin-
guished ; in consequence of this improvement—
The younger Male Lives are insured at Premiums below
the ordinary rates.
The Female Lives at rates lower than any other Office.
Life Assurance may be effected for North and South
America, for the East Indies, for any of the British Colo-
nies or Garrisons, for a continued or an especial Maritime
Risk, for the Whole of Life, or for the duration of any Mi-
litary, Civil, or Diplomatic Duty.
Four-fifths of the Profits are divided among the Assured,
whether at home or abroad.
A Medical Officer attends tidily, at Two &Clock, in
Cornhill ; and at Three, in Waterloo-place ; before whom
only it is necessary to appear.
Physicians are appointed in all parts of the Kingdom.
HENRY P. SMITH, Actuary.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, after hearing Counsel
in this matter again, directed that the order which,
had been consented to by the Counsel and Attor-
nies under a misapprehension of their client's in-
structions, and of some of the points of his case
which had not then been communicated to them,
should be rescinded, and that the parties should be
placed in the same state as before, on payment of
the costs by the plaintiff.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 21.
THE EXECUTORS OF RUNDELL V. BIOG.
In this case the executors of the late Mr. Rundell,
of the firm of Rundell and Bridge, had filed a bit!
against his nephew, the defendant, praying the Court
to restrain him from proceeding to execution in the
event of his succeeding in proceedings instituted at
law, and to compel him to give up a bond of the late
Mr. Rundell's, by which an annuity of 6001. was se-
cured to the defendant.
Mr. SUGDEN, for the plaintiffs, detailed the case.
In 1806, Mr. Rundell invited his nephew the de-
fendant; to come and reside in town, and promised
to provide for him. Mr. Rundell immediately granted
to the defendant and his mother an annuity of 6001.,
which he secured by a bond. In 1808 Mr. Run-
dell wished to take the defendant into the business;
but as the partnership then existing would not ex-
pire until 1810, he contented himself with assigning
to the defendant a sixteenth of his own share in the
concern, and, as an earnest of his future favour, gave
him a post-obit bond for 20,000/. In 1810, Mr.
Rundell.gave the defendant the full profits of a six-
teenth of the whole business, and lent him 25,000/.
to enable him to keep up a proper appearance ; but
upon that sum of 25,0001. it was understood that
the defendant should pay Mr. Rundell interest, and
that understanding was always enforced. Now upon
this arrangement in 1810, Mr. Rundell ceased to pay
the said annuity of 600/. ; and, from 1810 until the
death of Mr. Rundell, not only was no annuity, nor
part of the annuity, paid by Mr. Rundell, but neither
the annuity nor any part of it was ever claimed by
the defendant. On the death of Mr.. Rundell, how-
ever, the defendant produced the bond, and claimed
the arrears upon it for 1.7 years, and also the future
payment of the annuity, thereby secured. The
claim had been resisted by the executors of Mr.
Rundell, and the defendant bad commenced an ac-
tion at law. Whether the defendant would succeed
in this action or not,—whether the neglect of apply-
ing for payment of the annuity for 17 years would
or would not destroy any claim that the defendant
might have had under the bond,—was, in his (Mr.
Sugden's) opinion, a very doubtful matter. Was
it not clear, by a man as notoriously punctual
in his engagements as Mr. Rundell was, ceasing
at this particular period to pay the said annuity,
that he conceived the bond void ? He thought
he could prove to the Court that the defend-
ant and Mr. ERundell both considered the bond
void. He had mentioned that Mr. Rundell had
taken his nephew into partnership in 1810,
giving him a full sixteenth of the profits, which
amounted to upwards of 2,5001. a-year, and that
Rundell also lent him 25,0001., for which he
was to pay interest. Now so religiously did Mr.
Rundell insist upon this agreement, that Mr. Bigg,
who was constantly in arrear, was, upon one occa-
sion, compelled to sell a rent-charge of 240/., at a
loss of eight per cent. in order to satisfy the de-
inands of Mr. Rundell. This was stated in the
bill. Now all the time iitiat Mr. Rundell was
pressing him to defray those arrears, why did not
1111 r. Bigg say, " It is true, Sir, that I owe you so
much for interest, but then there is money due to
me for arrears of an annuity you granted me ?"
Would any man, pressed in this manner, have hesi-
tated to claim such a set-off if he had thought he
was entitled to a set-off? It was clear, upon the
very face of the transaction, that Mr. Rundell con-
ceived this bond to be void. But there was ano-
ther point which proved it beyond doubt. In mak-
ing his will, Mr. Rundell recited a variety of bonds
and grants which he had executed to different per-
sons. Among these he had mentioned the post-
obit bond for 20,0001., but riot a word was said
about the bcind which secured the annuity of 600/.
He conceived this to be decisive.
Mr. KNIGHT followed on same side.
Mr. PEPYS, for the defendant, contended that his
diem- had a right to claim under the bond, and that
it could be no ground for withdrawing the benefit of
one favour, because it was shown that the person
who granted that one had also granted others. With
respect to the sale of the rent-charge, the defendant
positively denied that he lost any thing by that
sale ; and, for the sale itself, he accounted for that
by stating that he had a son whom he wished to ad-
vance. As to the defendant not having made any
demand for the arrears of the annuity, he accounted
for that circumstance very satisfactorily. -Mr. Run-
dell was known to be very capricious, and if he (the
defendant) had made a claim upon him, which ap-
proximated to the semblance of a demand, Mr. Run-
dell would instantly have discountenanced him, He
did not think his Honour had heard any thing that
should induce him to grant the prayer of the
,bill,
but he thought there was one circumstance, which
his friends had abstained from mentioning, that
would lead the Court to refuse it. Mr. Rundell had
enumerated grants and bonds which he had executed,
but had not enumerated them, all; and even if he
had, the last clause in his will removed all objection
on this score. That clause expressly stated that the
legacies in his will were to be paid in full, notwith-
standing any bends or grants that he had made to
the legatees at the time of executing his will, or
that Ile-might make at any future time.
Mr. JEMMET was heard at considerable length on
the same side.
Mr. SUGDEN replied ; and
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that consider-
ing this' to be a very important case, he should cer-
tainly pronounce no opinion upon it until he had
considered the circumstances more attentively.

,ESTABLISHED MEDICINES.
FNEWBERY and SONS, Proprietors
• of Dr. James's and other valuable Medicines,
caution the Public against Counterfeits, and acquaint them,
that none but the genuine are sold at their Warehouse, No.
45, in Saint Paul's Churchyard, the third house from
Cheapside.

s. d.

s.
_d.
Dr. Steer'. Opodeldoc 2 9
—Camomile Drops 1 9
—Convulsion Oil 6
—ParegoricLozenges 1 1
Bilious Pills (New-
bery's) 2 9
Dr. Salemi'sPowder 22 0
Ess. of Coltsfoot
Ditto, ditto 3 6

Dr. James's Powder 2 9
—l2 in a Battle 24 0
.....-Analeptic Pills 4 6
—Cattle Powder 1 6
Dalby's Carminative 1 9
Collins's Cephalic
Snpff -,k
Mr. Spence's Dentri-
fice
Huxham's Tincture 3 6
The authenticity of the above will be ascertained by the
name of " F. Newbery" being engraved in the stamp.
Dr. Solander's Tea ...2 9 I Dr. Hooper's Pi115...1 1t
And every other Medicine of repute. On taking Six,
the Stamps are allowed.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

TO THE EDITOR 01; THE SUN.

SIR-Permit me to inquire, through the medium of
your Paper, if it be usual to allow the Clerks in Green-
wich Hospital to hold two or three situations, independently
of the one to which they have an appointment in that valu-
able establishment, and this to the detriment of many other
deserving persons ? I have always entertained au idea that
such a monopoly of situations was not allowed in Govern-
ment offices; and, if this be the case, it will be naturally
asked, why permitted in this instance ? I hope this may
meet the eye of the Lord High Admiral, and induce him
to make some inquiry on the subject.
I have heard similar instances of persons holding valua-
ble situations in the Post-office acting in the double capa-
city of a servant of the public and a general merchant.
I remain, Mr. Editor,
Your faithful servant,
AN ENEMY TO MONOPOLY.
Westminster, Nov. 20, 1827.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 21.
THE KING V. JOHN PTATT.
This was an information filed by his Majesty's
Attorney-General against the defendant, for hoist-
ing a light at three o'clock in the morning of the 2d
November last on Portland Island, a; a signal to
warn certain smuggling vessels off the coast.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE read the notes taken at
the trial by Lord Chief-Justice Best, who tried the
case.

The defendant, a weather-beaten old mariner, pro-
tested that he had never hoisted a light on the night
in question, and put into Court a certificate of his
good character from the church-warden and over-
seers of his parish.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—You could not pay a fine,
I suppose ?
The defendant declared that he bad no property.
The little property which he once possessed had all
been swept away by a flood which took place in Dor-
setshire about three years ago. His house had been
carried away with it. He had himself escaped with
difliculty,but his wife had perished in the inundation.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked the Solicitor-General
if he had any thing to say on this case ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was entering into some
comments upon the evidence given at the trial, when
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that there was nothing
like the evidence on which Mr. Solicitor was com-

PRICE ID.

menting to be found in the Learned Judge's report
of the trial. . _

. _
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was quoting from 4,
short-hand note of what occurred at the trial.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—We cannot act upon any
thing but the Judge's notes; and from that it does
not appear that the preventive man says that the de-
fendant is the person whom he seized.
A short discussion took place upon this point be-
tween the Bench and the Solicitoe-General; the
former contending, that on the Judge's notes the de-
fendant was not mentioned as the man seized ; and
the-latter that he was. After it had continued some
time,
Mr. Justice BAY LEY asked the Learned Counsel
whether he could, as Solicitor-General, call upon
the Court to punish a man, when tie evidence did
not appear to the Court to sanction his guilt
The SOLICITOR-GENETlAL—Cvrtainly not, if such
be your Lordship's opinion.
It was ordered that the defendant should be
brought up to-morrow, in order that in the interim
the Learned Judge might be consulted as to the
meaning of one or two ambiguous passages which
appeared upon his notes.

THE KING v. roan.
This was an indictment against the defendant foi
a nuisance occasioned by his having erected certain
posts and steps encroaching on the high road; in the
parish of Raleigh; near Rockford, in the county of
Essex. It was tried before Mr. Justice Holroyd at
the last Chelmsford assizes, and a verdict of guilty

was recorded against the defendant.
Mr. Ford appeared this day on the floor of the
Court with a large plan of the high road in his hand,

to receive judgment.
Mr. CußwooD, for the defendant, said that his
client had prepared a very long affidavit, which he
wished to be read in mitigation of punishment. He
would, however, confine himself to stating that. the
defendant swore that the encroachment on the high-
way had existed for 35 years, and had never been
complained of till the present surveyor had come into
office. After tL finding of the jury he could not
pretend to argue that it was no nuisance ; but the
affidavits contained facts which led him to suspect
that the nuisance had been strangely over-rated.
Mr. BRODERICK intimated his surprise at the asset.-

tion just made by his Learned Friend. The question
had been solemnly decided by a jury of the country;
and the affidavits of the defendant, which la a d been

fully considered by the Court, on the motion which he
had made for a new trial, had been deemed incompe-
tent to disturb the verdict.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked the learned counsel
on both sides, whether this matter could not be
settled without calling for the judgment of the Court.
Mr. BRODERICK said, that the conduct of the de-
fendant had been ,so extraordinary, that he was
afraid that it could not. It was with the utmost
difficulty that the prosecutor had been able to bring
him before the Court on the present occasion. He
had allowed his recognizances to be estreated on a
former occasion rather than' appear; and the prose-
cutor would not have had it in his power to produce
him in court at present, had he not accidentally
learnt that he. was in the custody of the Court of
Chancery on a writ of rebellion. Since his convic-
tion for this nuisance, he had considerably aggrava-
ted it by erecting on some boards, before the en-
croachment, a series of figures, libelling all the parish
authorities, from the rector down to the lowest par-
ties who had anything to do with the highways.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY advised the defendant to
abate the nuisance.

p,..'" ,-i• -
guiltyoas
enfcd othntedhtetoni lastmattmhheeremefoerlajluei• - '.. - r-.. - v „ • :^0
.rtt:::.-ide'nd'itrd'iM';"aT 7.1
named in them with 1
.
John Moore the elder, the father bf the two other
defendants, is a small farmer residing at Ostrey, in
e're this
4;ll:ll:yrirlgilltbi tr.
Ifl4 , ''' ?
Warwickshire; he occupied some fields adjoining to
those of the prosecutor, Corbett, who claimed a right
of pathway over them. Of that right, John Moore
the elder was entirely ignorant, the pathway having
been closed up many years ago by the father and
mother of the prosecutor, when occupants of the
same lauds. Without giving notice to the defendant
of his intention, the prosecutor determined to open
the old pathway. The three defendants, who were
in their own field, made a strong remonstrance to the
prosecutor on the impropriety of his conduct; but
that remonstrance was so far from making him de-
sist, that it absolutely led him to snatch the axe
from his servant, and to cut with his own hands a
gap of seven feet wide in the hedge of the elder de-.
fendant. The consequence of this extraordinary
proceeding was, that a general affray took place be-
tween the two parties. In the field-vas a quantity
of dung, which the two younger defendants, of whom
one is 17 and the other 13 years of age, took and
flung upon the wife of the prosecutor. The prose-.
cutor himself got a violent blow on the head, which:
be swore was given him by the elder defendant.
For this transaction the prosecutor preferred at the:
sessions the four different indictments against the
defendants which we have before mentioned. _ _ .
c i;cigrarnbnaeednt
judgment.
chargewti t. ss i ill" u
g' t i io.

-
Mr. CLARK, jun. in calling for the judgment of the
Court, did not intend to call for any heavy puniih-
ment on the defendants All be wanted was, that
the pathway should be opened, and I hat the high,
stile, which it was now impossible for any decent.
female to get over, should be made accessible and.
useful to the public.
After some discussion between the Bench and the
Bar, it was agreed that no judgment should be pro-
nounced upon the indictment for the nuisance in ob-
structing the path Way; but. that the matter in dis-
pute between the partieS upon that point should be'
left to the adjudication of Mr. Perkins, a gentleman
who resides in the neighbourhood. Upon the three
other indictments, _ _ _

Mr. Justice BAYLEY proceeded to deliver judg-,
ment. The sentenee of the Court was, that John
Moore the elder should pay a fine of Gs. Bd. to the..
King, and enter into his own recognizances for 201.
for his good behaviour during the next year ; that
John Moore the younger and Thomas Moore should-
pay a fine of is. each to his Majesty ; and that on
payment of each fine they should all be discharged.
Lord TENTERDEN left the Court at half-past 14
o'clock to sit in London at Nisi Prius. The rest of
their Lordships did not rise till three o'clock.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Nov. 21,

N TII! MATTER OP WM. OTTO AND ROEDAY, TWO STAVES.

These were two of the cases of alleged illegal
importation of slaves into Antigua, opened last
Court-day.
Lord STOWELL said that he had looked into these
cases, and could find no circumstances which dis-

tinguished them from that of " Grace." He should
therefore affirm the sentence in the Court below,
with costs.

H THE MATTER. OF 301 IN SMITH ♦NI) RACHEL, TW) • t

SLAVES.

The facts in this case, which are not in dispute,
were shortly as follows :—The two saves, in 1817,
accompanied Major Watts, of the West India Regi-
ment, and his wife, to Gibraltar, as domestic ser-
vants. In 1818, they were sent, under orders from
General Don, Lieutenant-Governor of Gibraltar, to
Barbadoes, Major Watts executing a deed or certi-
ficate of manumission to the following effect :—,
" These are to certify, that (naming the slaves), for-.
merly my servants, are in all respects free and emr.ai-
.cipated, so far as I am concerned, and that I do give
up all claim to them, as slaves, and will make. lm de-,
mand for their restitution on •their return. to their
native country (Antigua.)—Witness my hand, this
25th of June, 1818: Upon the arrival of these
individuals at Barbadoes, a representation was made
to the Governor, Lord Combermere, by the executor
of Mrs. Kirwan, the original owner of the slaves,
whence it appeared that Major Watts, in right of
his wife, bad merely a reversionary interest in the
fourth part of the property in these slaves, who be-
longed to Mrs. Havercamp, of Antigua, during her .
life, and at her death became the joint property of.
her four daughters, of whom Mrs. Watts was one.
Upon the application of Mr. Kirby, the executor re-
ferred to, Lord Combermere forwarded the slaves, in
November, 1818, to Antigua, in an armed brigantine,
and under his orders they were delivered to the per-
sons to whom they belonged. In August, 1825,
they were seized by Mr. Chipchase,-a landing writer,
at. Antigua, for an asserted infraction of the slave
trade acts : the information alleged that they had
been unlawfully conveyed from Gibraltar to Barba-
does, and illegally imported into Antigua, after the
Ist of January, 1820, when the act of the 59th.
George 111. first came into operation.
Dr. JENNER, for the owners of the slaves (the
respondents in this case, which is an appeal from the
Vice-Admiralty Court of Antigua), stated, that the
question was, under what act these persons were to
be considered as forwarded from Barbadoes to An-

Mr. Ford complained of the harshness with which
he had been treated by the parish authorities. The
encroachment which the jury held to be a nuisance
had been in existence for a great number of years
He would not remove it of his own accord. He
would, however, willingly submit to any punish-
ment which the Court might think .proper to inflict
upon him. He could wish his affidavit to be read.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The case, as it stands at
present before us, is not a case of either fine or im-
prisonment. In having your affidavit read against
the advice of your counsel, Mr. Ford, you run the
risk of both fine and imprisonment.
Mr. Ford, notwithstanding this caution, would
have his affidavit read.
The affidavit, of enormous length, was then read.
The sum and substance of it was, that the Rector,
the Magistrates, and all the subordinate officers of
the parish, had entered into a conspiracy to find the
bridge and steps by which he got into his own house
an encroachment on the high road, and therefore a
public nuisance. He complained of the vindictive
spirit which the Magistrates had displayed towards
him in sending a constable to arrest him at a time
when he was known to be only just recovering from
insanity. They had exercised their influence at one
Assizes to get the trial of this indictment put off to
the next, because they had discovered that the
Jury would be taken from the neighbourhood of his
cottage, and would, therefore, be well acquainted
with the fact that the encroachment complained of
was no encroachment at all.
Mr. BRODERICK—The indictment was made a
remanet, because the Learned Judge found that he
had not time to try it.
The affidavit then entered into various details, of
which it is quite impossible for us to give any ac-
count. A complaint of the enormous expences which
he had Been obliged to incur in consequence of his
litigation with the Magistrates and Surveyors of the
Highways.
Mr. BRODERICK, in reply, stated that the de-
fendant had erected, on a board in front of his pre-
mises, various nondescript figures with sentences
appended to them, libelling the Rector, the Sur-
veyor, and the different Magistrates of the neigh-
bourhood. Among them was an old man, with
spectacles on his nose, riding on an ass, with the
words, " This is mighty me," issuing from his
mouth. The devil was also dancing with several
parties, who, it was supposed, were intended for the
Magistrates. The Surveyor swore that he believed
the old man on the ass was intended for himself.—
The figures collected crowds to look at them, and thus
greatly inc.;eased the nuisance originally created by
the defendant's encroachment on the ;Gad.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY then pronounced judgment.
No doubt, Mr. Ford, this is a nuisance. I regret
whichth
of
t
a o
amyo usru
rpea
thatrrmt
etmaisaast
enter
prisonafistnat )reeert
ill
ePliiicleoregixonidliizbyaiontreicielleNsi'
be
you
o
sorry.—(Mr. Ford shook his head.)—Well, you
think so now, but before long you will think dif•
ferently. A writ tie ?memento amovendo must be
of
100/. for your good behaviour for• the next three
ysesauresd, andsuch
nizances are given.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr, ALDERSON asked the Court to enlarge, till
next term, the rule obtained by Mr, Brougham on a
former day, calling on James Brown, Esq., M.P., to
show cause why a criminal information should not
be filed against him at the instance of Sir W. Bra-
bazon, High. Sheriff of the county of Mayo, in Ire-
land.

tigua. AU the doeurnentsand evidence in the cause
showed that the importation (if such it was to be
deeMed) took place in 1818, before the act en which
all the counts of the information relied came into
operation. If the accusation in this case, and which,
his party was called on to refute, was an illegal t
the
eonKthisn
gb,esforAe ,dtvhoeeagtreo ground o ff seizure
failed. im-
portation after 1820, and if in fact the imr, irtatjon
laeßeutls
tfaoiolekdp.
equity in this case, which entitled the slaves to their
freedom, owing to their return to the West Indies
not being voluntary, but induced by the act or deed
of manumission. But this .document released the
slaves only so far as Major Watts was concerned,
and it was declared by Lord Combermere not a legal
instrument in the West Indies. The assumption of
such inducement was not fair ; it should have been
stated in the proceedings to enable the adverse party
to rebut it. There could be no equity in making
the act a mere possessor of a reversionary interest in
part* of the property binding upon the owner for
life. On the general question, the slaves were not
entitled to their freedom on their return to the 'West
Indies, by the Court's decision in the case of
" Grace." Again, in point of time, the seizor w
as
barred from taking advantage of any irregularity
in
.
the importation, supposing such to have
occurred; he was bound by the statute in these cases to pro-
secute within three years at
the utmost whereas
seven years had elapsed from the importation,•
till the
seizure. The 47th section of the act 5 Geo. IV.,
which had been appealed to in support of the infor-
mation, had not a retroactive effect. Upon the
whole, the Learned Advocate submitted that the
sentence of the Court must be the same in this as
in the former case.
Dr. Doia.i.ox followed on the same side.
Tile KING'S ADVOCATE, for the respondent, be-
gan by expressing . his regret at being obliged to
press the argument after the former decision of the
Court : he felt it, however, to be his duty to do so.
Lord STowELL.—Not against the sentence of the
Court : I shall not suffer that. •
The KING's AIWoCATE replied, that his Lordship
did him an injury in supposing that he intended so
to do, In regard to the objection that the informa-
tion charged the fact to have been committed after
1820, whereas it was prior to that date, he (the
King's Advocate) thought that the Court never at-
tached much consequence to variations and mistakes
of that nature in cases from the West Indies, pro-
vided there was an issue of facts which it was com-
petent to try. The facts of the case would not be
changed by a change in the period of time. The
next point was, whether the Court was precluded
from entertaining the case, by the period of time that
had elapsed. He contended that the period which had
expired since the importation was not fatal to the
cause. With regard to the merits of the
case, al-
though be admitted that the intention of Lord Com-
bermere and others had been
fair,
yet the importa-

Mr. Justice BAILEY—Take a rule. If Mr.
Brougham has any objection to the enlargement
you propose, he can state it to-►norruw, when he is
present in Court.

REX V. JOHN MOORE, SEV
---•-THE SAME V. THE
REX V. JOHN MOORE, JUN..-REE V. THOMAS MOORE.
These four indictments were removed by cer-
tiorari from the Warwickshire Sessions into this
Court. The first charged John Moore, sen. with
committing a nuisance in wilfully obstructing a road,

„,,,,,,\ T ...
.r.t...„,,,,, t ”
4„,.. '--.• ' 1
~. . -
4,14, ,
r- - /' ( i • Vti ...,..-_....„.AL.
\ _
-- tf ~..4:',---V4,111,4,V7n, v*, -.---, "---'-' '•-1 e. - - • )
-, fx,', ‘: ' ' -w,:- 07 .. -----.l*-50, --.-- ..c I ,•.‘-'.;-
, , 2...uw, ,>-, • I,' ve tqi 'z'r-"'' '5. .' * ------' \ -
\ , :
.4151;-- '';'''• ( , , • ' ; ' ~..1-, '1.., ,
_ ...
VA. ''".i-vi...-- N., 4p, .., ' ' i N'c•-••,‘ iill' r et N
vilL• ',......,...,..,....,,, . , + rij ~. )1--
1