The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-23 00:00:00

DESIGNS COPYRIGHT BILL.

This Bill went Committee pro forma, in order
to have the Bill reprinted. The Bill was ordered to be
recommitted this day fortnight:
MINES AND COLLIERIES BILL.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition against this Bill
from Coltbridge, Lancashire. lie (Lord Stanley) did
not concur in the prayer of the petition.
Lord ASHLEY presented a petition in favour of the
Bill from Barnsley, signed by upwards of 5,000 miners
and others; also- a petition to the same effect, signed by
females alone. The petitioners expressed their grateful
thanks to the House for having allowed the introduction
of this Bill; alSo a petition to the same effect from the
hand-loom weavers of Barnsley.
On the motion for the House going iuto Committee on
the Bill,
Mr. SCOTT wished to correct some mis-statements
relative to the parishes in the district with which he was
connected. It had been represented, in the Report made
by the Commission, that the parishes id the district of
Walsall were in the habit of apprenticing boys to mines.
He begged to,say that very few of the parishes were in
the habit of doing this. He thought it his duty to state
this as the report was calculated to injure the union with
which he was immediately connected. With respect to
this Bill he had no hostility to the general principles of
the Bill, but if it were passed with its present provisions
it would have..a, most serious effect upon the mines in
Staffordshire,. and would materially reduce their condi-
tion in life, and would not tend to improve their moral
condition, but would be quite the reverse. Many of the
colliers were
.happy, and he had known many of them to
say that their occupation was a pleasant one.—(Laughter.)
Withlegard _to the employment -of females, none were
employed in. the mines in that district ; and Dr. Mit-
chell stated ibat they were cheerful and contented. He
also stated that the constitution of the men were re-
markably good ; and similar testimony was given with
respect to the condition of the boys. He thought that a
subject of this deScription should not be made the object
of such haSty legislation as the Noble Lord seemed de-
sirous to apply to it. It a dangerous thing to throw
out of employment a large labouring population ; and it
was easy in any description of labour to find scenes that
could not .bOjtistified. He did not wish to give any op-
position to the gill, but he thought that the clauses re-
lating to engineers and apprentices ought to be post-
poned.
Mr. ALDAM agreed in much of what bad been
said by the Hon." Member. He hoped the Noble Lord
would grant a delay of a few days.
Mr. WARD did not think that the people of that part
of the country with which he was connected were op-
posed to the Bill, nor was there any desire that it should
be postponed.—(Hear.)-
Mr. LAMBTON Voped the Noble Lord would pro-
ceed with the Bill. There was a deputation from Dur-
ham- on the subject in London, and deputations might
also be sent from other'parts of the country.—(Hear.)
Lord ASHLEY said he hoped that the House would
allow him to go into Committee, as he had one or two
important amendments to make.
The house then went into Committee, Mr. GREENE
in the Chair.
Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 2 being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY said that, in consequence of represen-
tations which had been made to him on the subject, he
intended to propose another clause as a substitute for
the one in the Bill. He did this from the representa-
tions of two deputations with whom he had conversed on
the subject ; and he would take that opportunity of ex-
pressing his thanks for the courtesy of those gentlemen
who composed the deputationF, and who assured him it
was their wish and desire to look to the interests of
those who were under their care. It was, therefore, with
great satisfaction that he proposed this clause—" That it
shall not be lawful, after one calendar month from the
passing of the Act, to employ any boy for inure than 12
hours a day, and that no boy to be employed, after the
passing of the Act, shall be under 10 years of age, and
that he is to work only three alternate days in the week
till he arrives at the age of 13, and that from the passing
of this Act, it shall not be htwful to have any boy,
already employed in the mines, working under nine
years of age, tke time for working to ceinmence at nine
o'clock."

Mr. HUME was satisfied the compromise made by
the Noble Lord would forward the object he had in view.
With regard to the clause he proposed, he thought it
would be much more valuable if the boys on the days
they were idle were sent to receive instruction, and not
allowed to run about doing mischiet He thought it in-
cumbent on Government to provide them with the means
of instruction.

After a few observations from Lord ASHLEY and Mr.
LAMBTON,

Mr. HARDY said it would be much better, instead of
alternate days, that the number of hours should be
diminished.

Mr, AINSWORTH felt convinced,. if the propo-
tition of the Noble Lord was carried into effect, it would
throw the mines in his part of the country out of work.
Mr. PROTHEROE was grieved that the Noble Lord
had come to any arrangement to strike out the age
of thirteen.

Mr. BROTHERTON thought it was eesirable that
children employed in factories should have alternate days,
in order to give them an opportunity of going to school.
Mr. V. SMITH approved of the clause, as proposed
by the Noble'Lord (Lord Ashley). Ile trusted that
proper precautions would be taken to ensure a compliance
with its provisions.
Mr. SCOTT thought that children were not now
worse treated in collieries than in factories ; and the
House should not hastily pass any legislative enactment
on the subject.
Mr. AINSWORTH disapproved of the clause. It
would bring great distress on many of the poor iu the
mining districts.
Lord ASHLEY had reason to believe that the clause
was very generally approved of. He believed it would
lead to beneficial results.
Lord PALMERSTON approved of the clause.
After some further conversation, in which Mr. Bro-
therton Mr. Ward, Mr. Cobden, and Dr. Bowring took
part, the clause was agreed to.
On the next clause respecting the employment of ap-
prentices in mines,
Lord ASHLEY, in answer to a question from an
Hon. Member said, that the occupation was not such
as to require so long a servitude.
The clause was then agreed to.

Mr. E. LAMBTON gave notice that he sFould move
that a penalty be imposed upon parents for making false
representations for the purpose of getting children em-
ployed.
Clauses down to clause 7 were agreed to.
On clause 7 being put,
Mr. HARDY objected to the wording of the clause
which was intended to describe the entiy to the miac, as
not sufficiently distinct.
After a desultory conversation, in which several ➢lem-
bers took part, the claus; was agreed to.
Clauses 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 14, 15, and 16, after some
verbal amendments, were agreed to.
The House then resumed. The Chairman reported
progress, and the Report was ordered to be brought up
on Friday.
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. _

On the bringing up of the Report of the Sudbury Dis-
franchisement Bill,
Mr. BLACKSTONE rose to move that the Bill be
re. committed. The Her. Member said he had no wish
to offer any factious opposition ; but in the case of a Bill

which inflicted pains and penalties upon so large a body
of persons be thought he was justified in asking that the
matter should receive the fullest consideration. He
thought he had just grounds fur his motion, inasmuch
as the returning officer of the borough had not been
served with the proper papers. He, therefore, begged to
move that the Bill be recommitted.
Mr. RUSHBROOKE seconded the motion.

Mr. REDINGTON said that the Bill had gone
through Committee in a full House, and had met with
no opposition, except on some points of form. It was
too bad, then, that the Hon. Gentleman should come
forward with a motion for its re-committal. However,
if the House thought there were sufficient grounds for
such a course being adopted, he must, of course, bow to
its decision. With respect to the returning-officer not
having been served with the papers, he had to observe
that there was no regulation requiring such to
be done. The Honourable Member had full oppor-
tunities of discussing whatever points he chose to bring
forward; and if he chanced not to be in his place at the
proper time, it was rather hard on that account to ask,
for a re-committal of the Bill.

After a few words from Mr. BLACKSTONE,
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that if the Hon. Mem-
ber wished to throw out the Bill, he had taken the best
course for that- purpose. With respect to the dense
which the lion. Member had put on the paper, it could
be brought forward on the third reading.
Mr. HODGSON objected to the Bill being re-
committed.

Mr. BAILEY supported the mot'on for the recom-
mittal of the Bill. He thought there were sufficient
grout ds for such a course.

After a few words from Mr. WARD,
The House divided. The numbers were,
For the motion
Against it
Majority for receiving the Report„-,7.729
The Report was then agreed to.
RIVERS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the recommittal of the
Rivers (Ireland) Bill being rend.
Mr. REDINGTON objected to the Bill, on the
ground that it was an attempt to pass a private Bill
through the House under the guise of a public Bill, for
the purpose of avoiding a compliance with the standing
orders, in order to enable the parties interested in the
measure to escape from the rigid investigation to which
they would have been subjected by a Committee, if the
Bill had been introdticcd as a private Bill. .
Lord ELIOT said the Bill was merely intended to
remedy an omission in the Act commonly known as Mr.
More ()Terrain Act, and thought that the objections of
the Hon. Member would be better made in Committee.

The Speaker then left the Chair, and the House re-
solved itself into Committee on the Bill.

Causes 1 to 9 were agreed. to.
On clause 10 being proposed,
Mr. REDINGTON objected to the clause.
After a brief discussion, the Committee divided, when
there appeared—
For the clause 33
Against it 4
Majority in fairour of the clause
The other clauses were then agreed to, and the Report
was ordered to be received to-morrow.

The Dean Forest Ecclesiastical District Bill went
through Committee, and was ordered to be reported on
on Friday.
Lord COURTENAY obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to remove doubts touching the law relating to Charitable
Pawn or Deposit Offices in Ireland.
The Bill was afterwards read a first time, and was or-
dered to be read a second time on Wednesday next.
The House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.

LAW INTELLIciENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, June 22.

31 FADDEN t. JENKINS.
The Court proceeded this morning with the further hearing
of this part-heard case.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, June 22.
(Before Vice. Chancellor KNIGHT BaucE.)
His HONOUR, was engaged during a great part of the
morning in hearing the arguments of Counsel in a cause of
Bird v. Blythe, which related to the effect of a devise of
certzin property in the Edgeware-road.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3I.)
His HONOUR disposed of several short causes, but none of
them possessed any feature of general interest.

COURT OF QUEE.A'S BENCH, June 22.
DOE DEM. EARL OF EGREMONT V. DATE AND OTHERS.

The COURT was this day engaged in hearing motions for new
trials, in several cases in which verdicts had been returned tor.
the l•laintiff. ;In this case the arguments involved only ques-
tions of law, and did not possess any general interest.

BAIL COURT, Tune 22.
JACKSON V. HUNT.

Mr. Jervis and Mr. Petersdorf were for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Chambers for the defendant. .

This was an; action to try whether certain goods seized by the
defendant belonged to the plaintiff or to a person named Stokill.
It appeared that Stokill was a grocer, living in Broad-street,
Radcliffe, and that. the plaintiff, Miss Jackson, who was a mil-
liner, lived in 'the house, and when the execution was made she
claimed the goods as her own. A valuation of the goods,
and a sale to Jackson had been proved ; and it was also
preyed that she paid tases and rates for the house, and
had her name Rut over the door instead of Stokill. Two bills
of exchange for 351. were also produced to show that the sale
was a bona fide one.
Mr. CHAMBERS, for the defendant, contended that the whole
transaction wasp a fraudulent oae. That Miss Jackson had not
paid any rent Stokill for her lodgings or ten months • and
that it was not probable that a person, who was only a milliner.
with a small buemess, would be able to purchase the business of
Stokill ; and that there was nothing to indicate that a change of
proprietors had taken place.
His LORDSITIT, having summed up, the' Jetry retired, and
after some time returned with a verdict for the plaintiff.

THE QUEEN V. DUFF'.

On this case being called on, Mr. VALENTINE said that it
was not his intention to offer any evidence on the part of the
prosecution, did that a verdict might be entered for the de-
fsndant.—Verdict accordingly.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 22.

IN RP. SOLOMONS.

The insolvent in this case, who was described as a general
dealer and foreign broker, applied to be discharged on bail
until the day ordred for his final hearing. The two persons
offering themselves as sureties were, like the insolvent, of the
Jewish persuasion. One of them, named Moss, in reply to the
Learned Chief Commissioner, said he resided, and carried on
business in Garden-row, but a quantity of his furniture was at
46. Pleasant-place, West-square.
Mr. Commissioner 11 EYNOLDS-.—How comes it that your fur
niture is in Pleasant-place? Mr. Moss—Because it is the re
sidence of my intended mother-in-law.
Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS—Oh, then, I suppose it is
lodged there as a guarantee that you shall have the lady?--
(Laughter.) Mr. Moss—lt is the custom among our people.
Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS-But do you never lose both
the lady and the chattels? Mr. Moss—Perhaps we might
occasionally. The furniture has been there nearly three years
now.

Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS—What I has the courtship_
lasted so long as that ? You must not be too sure of yoUr
prize, Mr. Moss. However, as we only want the furniture, and-
not the lady, you are accepted as bail. Mr. Muss—Thank you,
Sir ; but 1 hope I shall yet accept the lady on security my-
self.—(Laughter. )
The insolvent was then liberated.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 22.
MORTIMER AND ANOTHER V. CRADOCK.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff's, the
eminent jewellers, to recover from the defendant,- the
keeper of a coffee-house, the value of seven diamonds,
alleged to have formed part of a necklace,. of considerable
value; which was stolen from the plaintiffs. The necklace
was originally the property of. Mr. Eult, a diaMond
merdiant, who left it in the hands of Messrs.
Bla.gg and Martin, also extensive diamond merchants,
from whom it .passed into the possession
~of the
plaintiffs, in .1840. In October of that year, the necklace
was stolen from the premises of the plaintiffs, and dia-
monds which corresponded in the cut, water, andpPoportion
with those of which the necklace had been composed
were offered for sale by the defendant to Mr. Hamal, a
diamond broker. In consequence of hand-hills which
had been issued by the plaintiffs, the defendant
was called to account as to whence he had
obtained the jewels. Idis explanation did not
enable the plaintiffs, or the police officer whom they em-
ployed, to trace the parties from whom he stated he had
obtained the jewels. Under these circumstances the
action was brought, to recover the value of that portion
which was traced to his possession.
Several witnesses swore that the seven jewels sold to
Mr. Hamal belonged to the necklace ; and the Jury,
after a short deliberation, found for the plaintiff's, in
damages 500/.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

Robert Baker, William Allen, Frederick, West, and Wit.
liana Harper, who surrendered to take their trials, were in-
dicted, the two former for stealing two cheval glasses and a
quantity of other property, from a house in Eagle street, Hol-
born ; and the prisoners West and Harper were indicted for a
conspiracy, in causing a levy to be male upon the goods, in
order to defraud the prosecutor, —l3hillip, of her property.
Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Ballantine conducted the prose-
cution; and Mr. Charnock ar.d Mr. Harry appeared for the
prisoners.
The ease arose out of a quarrel between two brothel-
keepers, residing in Eagle .street, Holborn, as to the right of
possession to the house in question. The prisoner claimed a
right to the possession, and gave the prosecutor notice to quit ;
and upon her refusing to do so, a. levy was made epos' the goods,
and they were taken in execution. The prisoners charged with
the robbery were the parties who seized the goods. In conse-
quence of this the present case was institwed.
The prisoners were acquitted on both indictments.

POLICE IN. TEL LICENCE.
MAP SION HOUSE.
A pawnbroker named ,M,Dard was summoned before
Alderman Gibbs, to show cause why he received in
pleo.ge a pair of regimental shoes, contrary to the statute.
Sergeant Wm. Eldridge produced the shoes, in the
inside of which was marked the name of the regiment of
Guards to which they belonged. Ile stated that on the
17th inst. he reeeil ed the pawn ticket, with directions to
take the shoes out i f pledge, and he accordingly paid
3s. Oid. to the pawnbroker to redeem them. lie knew
that they belonged to the regiment from the mark inside.
There was no hesitation about giving him the shoes.
Mr. Foikard appeared by his Solicitor, who asked
whether any one was to be called to prove when the
shoes were pawned ?
The witness said they were not pawned in the name of
the soldier to whom they belonged.
The pawnbroker's solicitor said that the articles were
pawned by a customer, and thertfore no suspicion was
entertained that they were regimental shoes, and that
the mark inside was scarcely perceptible. He however
grounded the defence of his client uilen the fact that
the shoes were taken out of pledge, whereas, according
to the statute, they ought to have been left in pledge,
and the pawnbroker ought to have been summoned for
having them in pledge.
Alderman GIBBS paid that sort of defence would not
answ:r. It was quite enough for him to know that they
had been pledged, and that they were regimental.
Mr. Whitaker, a pawnbroker, who said he bad been

in the trade forty years, and had received the thankt of
military authorities, for his exposure of the tricks by
which soldiers concealed regimental marks, in order to
impose upon pawnbrokers, stated that he would have
taken in the shoes in question without hesitation.
Alderman GIBBS—it is the pawnbroker's duty to see
that there is no regimental mark on whatever is taken to
him as a pledge. This case is fully proved, but it is not
one for severe punishment. I fine the pawnbroker 205.,
and three times the value of the shoes, and costs.
Captain Ganwazain, of the Dutch sloop Vissery, lying
off the Custom-house, was summoned by a lighterman,
named Rose, for having cut away the hawser of the
Hope and Surrey barge, which lay alongside of the sloop.
The complainant stated that the barge had been made
fast, according to the harbour-master's regulations, and
that soon afterwards the Dutchman ordered his man,
without ceremony, to cut away the hawser, and let the
barge, drift down the river, which was accordingly done.
One of witness's sons, in endeavouring to prevent the
man from doing the mischief, received a cut in the neck,
and was actually near getting his throat cut, but be
could net swear that the knife was used intentionallY
against him.
It appeared from the evidence that the Dutchman,
upon being expostulated with, emitted 'the most abu-
sive language along with the whiffs •of his pipe, and
d—d the defendant and the harbour-masters, and all
other authoritiee which might resist his directions.
The Assistant harbour-Master said that a
of indulgence was shown to the Dutch ships which came
to this port laden with eels, ou account of the trade, and
that Captain Ganwazain showed the greatest contempt
for the authorities on the occasion.
The sons of the complainant said the Captain was,
drunk when he gave the orders, and that he said he did
•
not care for any body, as he had his men aboard to do
what he commanded. great deal
The. Captain said he was not drunk when he directed
his men to act, but that he was going to dinner. He also
stated that one of the young men challenged him to fight)
and that.he said he would not fight until he had eaten his -
dinner, as he did nut like to be knocked about upon au
empty stomach.
Alderman GIBBS said the Captain must take care bow
he repeated such tricks,'and fined him 2(35. and costs, aud
expenses.
'lhe Dutch man threwdown the money, and walked awl*"
MARLBORO tIG H-S TR.EE T.
Lobanti Frondi, an Italian, was pieced at the bar, chilled
with assaulting Le Conti Graziana, a No. 15, South' Won.
str: et.
The cornp!ainant, who is likewise a native of Italy, ntstfa
that. the prisoner was one of a gang of five or six Italians, vie
for two or three years past had sotely subsitted in London
beeging or extorting money by menaces from their fellow-
countrymen. who might be residing in or visiting the Me",
tropulis. About three months ago he came to complainant')
house and solicited alms, and on tid. being given to him he "
threw it down with indignation, saying that he would net,.,On;
descend to accept such a trill's. Yesterday complainant eisd"
on a friend of his, Signor Ronconi, one of the singers at hs
Italian Opera House. and while there the prisoner gained ad-
mission to the house, and refused to leave it until he was re'
lievec,, and behaved with such violence that he tore Madan,'
Ronconi's dress, as she was. attempting to pass by him to
into the street. Complainant mentioned the prisoner's CDs'
ract. r to Signor Ronconi, but, notwithstanding he we'
relieved with a few shillings, he however went &VII
grumbling at the smallness of the amount. About
o'clock yesterday afternoon, as complainant was walking clooda
Regent-street he again met with the prisoner, who contreencf„,
abusing hini in a rnostviolent manner, and at length seized bun
by the cdlar, and attempted to close with him, intending. n°
doubt, to Stab him, but he beat him off with his stick, and °l' 3
policeman, coming up, gave him into custody.
The prisoner denied having in any way assaulted the Copt!'
h
Ik4r, Mr. Tilv_ (to the complainant)—Do yon w'3,„
to press the charge against the prisoner? Complainant•—•o:
certainly, I do; lam in danger ; die may stab me. If the
law does not protect me I must protect myself, and 114"
the man when he comes upon me.
Wilks, the gaoler, said the prisoner was a very de*lt:
character. About twelve months ago he was charged w
annoying and endeavouring to extract money from Signor
Rubini, of the Italian Opera House.
The 'Signor stated thatifor upwards of twelve months he bad
never gone abroad but under the fear of assassination froth Ose
prisoner. '
He was,ordered to pay a fine of 10s., or be imprisoned for
ten days.
Mr. Thomas Edward Johnson, a gentleman of fortune
residing' residinfiit No. 131, Piccadilly, appeared on a summon''
for assaulting Amelia Browning.
The complainant, a remarkably strong, hale, freshci
..7
coloured' young woman, stated,ihat she was housereal I!
to Mr. COwling, the proprietor, of the house, No. 13;
Piccadilly, which is let out in chambers: The defendant
occupied the suite of rooms on the second floor. Abott
half-pastreight o'clock on Monday morning last she wit'
in the defendant's drawing-room dusting the furnillZ;
when the defendant came in from his bed-room, with
only his dressing-gown and stockings on, and slapped her
on the, back with his open hand ; but whether in plai,°ol.
anger she could not say. He then seized her by bi
ernis,, and tustled her about the room for twenty minutes,:
during which be attempt.td to take indecent liberties with
her, and to throw ber down on a sofa ; but owing to her
being very strong and resolute, she resisted him rut
he at length threw her down on the floor, and finding 'l.O
could_ not accomplish his purpose, he struck her with 111,1
walking-stick, and then rang the bell for his valet, ell t.)
on his. 'entering the room he told him to take th:a
Of a woman away." She immediately acquaint „
her master and mistress with the manner she had be
ill-used.
rriise defendant most solemnly protested that the COar
plainant's statement was entirely false—he had had Of;
casion to complain of her impertinence several times `•
her mistress, and on Monday morning he desired her t°,
quit drawing7room, as he wanted to use it hints
but she positively refused to do so, and he did then cer•
tainly take her by the arm, and endeavour to force he:
out.,
.As to his taking indecent liberties with her, it '5
a mere.trumped up story out of revenge; he was c°ll3'
pletely dressed at the time.
The complainant underwent a long cross-examiaiol
by Mr. Maltby, in which she made some slight prow'.

cations.
Mr. MALTBY said the case was not clearly made o
ne
to his satisfaction, and he should therefore not deal sad'
marily with it, but send it to be determined by a Jul'
shOuld the complainant think proper to indict.
The defendant was then ordered to enter into his ow
recognizance of 100/. to answer the charge at the Sessi°ll
UNION-HALL. ys '
Frederick Bull, a fashionably dressed young rnan,
brought before Mr. Cottingham charged with stealing
the property of the London and Brighton Railway Compag;os
Policemanjidmarsh, M division, stated that the prisoner, e
a clerk in the service of the London and Brighton Wilt,
Company, and that three weeks ago he absconded from 4,0
Brighton terminus, taking with him 3001., the property ° tbs
Company. Every means had been devised to apprebendo,
prisoner, but he was not heard of until the preceding aftern,t
when the witness succeeded in taking him into custody 710
brothel in St. Martin's-court, St. Martin's-lane. At the
stiln
of his capture, he had only a few sovereigns in his posseLLl
- together with a gold watch, chain and seals, and without
questioned, he said that he had lost a considerable 110
money by betting at the Ascot races.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said that, as the offence was co.--I,e
at Brighton. he f•hould send the prisoner there. He Os
oo:dingly sent to that place for examination on the charge'

silks of
icks by
rder to
Ed have

y to seo
aken to
it is not
,er 205.,

y► lying
terman,

of the
Le sloop•
n made
ms, and
is man,
let the
ly done.
rent the
he neck,
but he
itionally

tchnian,
ost aba-
ipe, and
and all

ns.
Tat deal
ch can3e,
ade, and
:onteropt

taro was
d he did
rd to do

directed
He also
to fight,
eaten his
upon an

care bow
osts, and

red awaY

, charged
Hilton-

stated
lians, yrb°
.ondon by
:ir fellow
the 11'`'-
Iplainane.
to himbe
d not COn-
.ant called
:ant
at the
gained arl•
he was re-
Madarge
him to g°
ner's the'
he w"
rent away
About fice
(king de
ence
Tizn d
ed
endavv, ria
micron a

he Conti.
you tcish
.inapt—v"
ne. 11 this
r anal
.

y desper,e
argeci
um signor

iths he had
,n from the

)risoned for

01/ '
.1120„na.
o`
3orrip3OVA
prisone!li,
lv: on Rao
ed froet
perty of too
prebendoo
g afterna
~.mtodl 70.
At the ts!.o,
I possea
it hoot b 0.7
able solo

conuoitte4
He gay a
chive'

be
,fit
.
a s
to the e 0
'tches,&P
, and 010-
the elder of
of
ie scritelm,
erfornwo
air,ltsliso
snag le,
rouch• fe 0
yeri

ernorl the
held .13 boo
Set. !es
e for ,et
b,Ol rtr e
the 4—es si
torfir,
year,_
the rs- to
e a T 1 ',tit
engsreffstli
sbe
bt or°

the
ncillg ool•
of the stet
St the Sto ba
r are LW."
'so
for le 00
ee
The 100
the
colter' of
Olea,
a
of (fi"cfir'

niter''
AO'
date,

0,2700.
,or
of
boo',

st.
lei Bill.
lo la"

;s G

elde.t
rick Fhtte,
Hof L"
o cle

ban, fk4.,

inds.ortbt
retii.
,f r
do. on
lc,
Clo sp-
oof
ler;Rol
;I•

$l4"

•
strod'

i4g.