Star.
London, England, 1828-02-14 00:00:00

ANOTHER LITTER SAME DATE.

A numerous and very highly respectable body of
Gentlemen dined together yesterday at Wright's Hotel
And S:,ip Inn, to celebrate the return of W. H. Trent,

Esq. as representative of this town and port. The

dinner, wines, and dessert, were of the choicest kinds,
and gave the utmost satisfaction. The. Chair was ably
filled by John Bayley, Esq. and such was the hilarity of
the company, that it did not separate until a late hour.
The Princess Polignac, family, and suite ; Mr. Swan
and suite; Mr. Banbury, &c. &c. arrived at Wright's
Howl, this day, by the steam packet, Captain Bushell,
from Boulogne.

VALENTINE'S DAY.

COOK POPS/LAS ♦NNALS Or ustror. KNOWLED
•• Apollo has peeid through the shutter,
And waken'd the witty and fair;
The boarding-school belles in a flutter,
The twopenny post's in despair
•• The breath of the morning is flinging
A magic on blossom, on spray ;
And cockneys and sparrows are singing
In chorus on Valentine's Day."

St. Valentine's Day has long been famous in the po-
pular history of Great Britain. Dr. Goldsmith, in giving
a picture of genuine English rusticity, says, that the pea-
sants of his story, (Vicar of Wakefield,) " kept up the
Christmas carol, sent hue love knots on Valentine's morn•
ing, eat pancakes on Shrove fide, she wed their wit on
the first of April, and religiously cracked nuts on All
Hallow Eve."

Birds are supposed to choose their mates on this day,
and man deems it auspicious to follow their example.
Menage, in his Etymological Dictionary, has accounted
for the term " Valentine," 'by stating that Madame
Royale, daughter of Henry the Fourth of France, having
built a palace near Turin, which, in honour of the saint,
then in high esteem, she called the Valentine, at the first
entertainment which sbe gave in it, was pleased to order
that the Ladies should receive their lovers for the year
by lots, reserving to herself the privilege of being inde-
pendent of chance, and of choosing her own partner.—
At the various balls which this gallant Priucess gave
during the year, it was directed that each Lady should
receive a nosegay from her lover, and that, at every
tournament, the knight's trappings far his -horse shouldl
be furnished by his allotted mistress, with this proviso,
that the prize obtained should be hers. This custom, says
Menage, occasioned the parties to be called 66 Valentines
It is the hour of morning's prime,
The young day of the year,
The day of days before the time,
When brighter hopes appear.
It is the time of early love,
When sans but faintly shine;
It is the day all days above,
The sweet St. Valentine!
The cold snows on the meadows lie,
And not a leaf is green;
Yet here and there in yonder sky,
A gleam of light is seen.
So lose, young love,- 'mid storms and snow,
Darts forth a light divine ;
So darker days the brightness show.
Of thine St. Valentine !

.:,art

. '.. •

A very fine eagle was trapped last week by Captain '
RAMSAY'S gamekeeper on the hills above Balnakettle,
in Kincardrugshire. This magnificent bird measures
seven fret two inches between the tips of the wings, and
weighs ten and a half pounds. That part of his leg
commonly called the dr amstick, is larger than a man
can grasp with his hand. He is not at all injured by
the trap, having been caught by one of the sues, and has
been placed in a large cage, to keep company with
another fine bird of the same species, which was taken
from the nest in the Clova-hills, about four years ago,
and is not inferior in brunt, of plumage, and not much
inferior in size.
Friday evening last, between ten and eleven o'clock,
as] Mr. Alexander Paxton, spirit-merchant, Pleasance,
was returning from the country, where he had been on
business, when near the Gibbst-tctll he was attacked by
two at a, he h iving alighted from his horse. One of
the tobbers rifled his pocket of seven pounds one shilling
in notes, with which he made off. The other pulled
out his watch. Mr. Paxton bad only a small switch,
with which he struck 'the fellow across the hand, which
caused him to drop the watch, which, as the night was
dark, Mr. Paxton could not find. Having reached the
Gibbet-toll, he procured a light, with which he returned
to the spot where the robbery was committed, and
found the watch. Mr. Paxton cannot give any descrip-
tion of the robbers.—Edinburgh Evasing Courant.
SHOCKING ACCIDENT.•.—AbOIIt eleven o'clock this
forenoon a very frightful accident happened in Black-
friars-road, near the Bridge, by the upsetting of a stage-
coach, upon which were two outside. passengers : the
horses slipped and fell, and the coach almost instantly
went over. One passenger, whose name we understand
was Brown, was pitched off and fell upon his hetut.,
The unfortunate Gentleman was raised, and carried
into a shop, but he appeared nearly lifeless: his skull
was dreadfully fractured. He was taken in a coach tcr
the Hospital, but died before he arrived there. The
other also was thrown a "considerable distance from
the coach, and sustained an injury of the shoulder.—
No blame appears attachable to any body. The coach
was going at a slow rate ; and the horses fallias, through
the state of the ground, solely causal thitibooking
occurrence.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COVItT OP KING'S BENCH, WISTIIINSTES, Fire. 13.
Mlrtdlaaes Nisi Pries Sittings, alter Hilary Tome, before Lord
Tirwrzanax and Common Juries.
TfiE KING V. NIMBI&
IIPThiS was an indictment for wilful and corrupt per-
- alleged to have been committed by the defendant,
Main affidavit made by him in a cause in the Court of
Chancery.
The case on the part of the prosecution was stated by
Sir JAMS/ SCAELETT, who, after he had gone through
the details, called a person. of the name of Mills to
produce the proceedings is the Court of Chancery, but
that witness lint appearing, Lord TENTERDKN directed
a verdict of Not Guilty to be entered.
Immediately after this was done, the witness ap-
peared, but Lord TENTERDEN said he had no power to
reverse the verdict.
THE KING V. RODENT FOWLER.
This was an indictment against one cf the officers of
the Court of Requests in Vine-street, Piccadilly, for an
assault upon a Lady who was attending that Court,
upon a summons, a short time since.

Sir JAMES S•ARLIIrr, for the prosecution, stated,
that the Lady was so unwell as to be unable to attend

as a witness on this occasion, and that as the defendant
had been already before the Court on account of the

transaction to which the present indictment had re•
ference, he would decline proceeding with the case, and
the defendant might therefore be acquitted.
A verdict of Not Guilty was then recorded.
THR RING V. ARIS AND OTHERS.
Sir J. SCARLETT stated that this was an indictment
against the Commissioners of Highways, in the parish
of Stepney, for illegally erecting a toll gate across a
lane called Salmon-lane, near the Commercial-road.—
The principal question in the case turned upon the con-
struction of the local Act of Parliament of the parish

of Stepney. That question was, whether the gate ought
to have been erected at the end of the lane abutting on
the highway or across the lane, near the Commercial-
road ?—The COMMON SZRONANT appeared for the de-
fendants.

The facts of the case being admitted, it was agreed
that a verdict of guilty Astrid be entered, with leave
for the defendants to apply to the Court fur a special
case upon the construction of the Act of Parliament.
A verdict of Guilty was then recorded.
HITCHCOCK V. MORRIS.

This was an action between two attornies, the plain-
tiff claiming compensation in damages for an assault
inflicted upon hina,b, the defendant.
Sir James Scasturer stated the case for the plain-
tiff. It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff's
clerk, that the tw'irattornies were attending a summons
at the chambers of Mr.:Justice Holroyd, in Sergeant's-
inn; in July last. After they had been before the Learn-
ed Judge, an 'angry discussion of a per tonal nature
took place between them ifs the outer chamber. The
plaintiff charged'tne defendant with " sharF practice ;"
and the defendant said the plaintiff was a liar, to which
the plaintiff.rejuined that the defendant was a " scaven-
ger;" whereupon the latter sttuck the plaintiff on the
tare with his fist, and gave him a bloody nose; upon
;the plaintiff's complaining of this conduct, the defend-
ant proposed to• giro him a shilling as compensation
:for the " special damage" he had sustained, and told
him that if after that he brought an action, he (the de-
fendant) shynld plead a tender.
Mr..Bitouonak, on addressing the Jury for the de-
fendanOidieilad the case as a trumpery one. He was
not in a situation to deny that an assault had been com-
mitted, but in estimating the amount df damages, the
Jury would, remember that the plaintiff had given the
provoesios fort the assault, by charging the defendant
with "sharp practice. The The Jury might probably have
observed, that his Learned Friend, Sir James Scarlett,
on °paint this very grave case, was afraid to turn his
face totbem in his usual open manner, lest he should
not be abte to keep his countenance while detaining the
factsof this most " untoward event." (Great laughter.)
Ie wsl4lll.ll4cLtbe Jury might observe the expression
Of his countenance, and therefore he had held his brief
before his face while relating the particulars of this
sangaidiry battle, in which it appeared so much blood
had flowed front the nose of one of the combatants, that
he was onder(beinecessity of having two surgeons to
attend him. He hid paid one of them only a few
shillings for his--ser_vices, and the other had received
nothing. Tlrectxpense, therefore, be had been put to
on account of-this affair, was a mere trifle ; and he Or.
Brougham) thought that if the Jury gave him Is. for
the injuries he had sustained, that would be ample
compensation. •
Lord TENTsionx lekit .eo the -Jury to say what
amount of damages tit* plaintiff was entitled to under
thecircurnstattees; •
The Jury found rot the plaintiff—Damages 101.
Lord Tigwricasza observed, that the parties had
chostn a most improper place for engaging in quarrels
of a personatoature.

JENKINS 9. JAIIFI
This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for an: injury sustained by the plaintiff, in con-
sequence of the defendant's having maliciously issued
out. process of outlawry against her.
The facts of the case, as given in evidence, were
shortly these: The plaintiff, Charlotte Jenkins, was
possessed, jointly with her three sisters, of a small
landed property at Credon-hill, in Herefordshire,where,
with one of her sisters, she kept a school. The de-
fendant, an Attorney residing at Credon-hill, had pro-
perty adjoining that of the plaintiff's. Some sheep and
pigs of his having strayed into the plaintiff's garden,
and done considerable damage there, the plaintiff im-
pounded them. The defendant brought an action of
replevin, aid the plaintiff not having appeared to this
proceedings, the defendant caused the usual writ of
capias ad aspondenduns to be issued, and got it returned
non estiwoeistsu, by the sheriff, though the plaintiff was
at the time residing at Credos hill, within a few hun-
dred yards of the defendant's residence. The defendant
afterwards proceeded to obtain judgment of outlawry
against the plaintiff ; and her land, having under the
outlawry become forfeited to the Crown, he afterwards
petitioned the Lords of the Treasury, and procured a
lease of it to be granted to himself. The judgment of
outlawry was subsequently set aside by the Court of
Common Pleas, on the ground of its having been irre-
gularly obtained under the false return of non est in-
veatu s ; and the defendant had to pay costs upon
• that occasion, amounting to upwards of 241.
It was contended on the part of the plaintiff
that the defendant, in carry lug on the proceedings against
the plaintiff, bad been influenced by malicious motives,
and a desire to get the plaintiff's land into his own poi-
' session, haring purchased of one of the plaintiff's sisters
a fourth part of the entire property, which had descended
to the plaintiff and her sisters on the death of her mother.
Ile had repeatedly applied to the plaintiff to sell him
. her share,-whicbtnhe had refused to do. It was stated
by one of the witftessit, that the defendant's sheep and
pigs had frequently trespassed upon the plaintiff's land,
and that, upon the plaintiff's causing them to be im-
' pounded, be bad violently assaulted her. The principal

sot.

' point in the case, however, was, that respecting the false
return to the writ of alias ad reepondeiduni. it was urged
on the part of the plarntiif, that the defendant had pro-
cirred that return to be made from malicious motives,
in order to obtain the outlawry without letting the
plaintiff have notice of the proceedings; and it was
stated by Mr. Harris, the Under Sheriff of Herefordshire,
who was esaatined as a witness, that he had refused to
make the return in the first instance, conceivinghe was
not authorized to do so, but he afterwards received a
written authority from the defendant to make the return:
The plaintiff's witnesses were cross-ezamined by Sir
James Scarlett for Vie purpose of chewing that the de-
fendant had made offers of reference to the plaintiff, arid
had disclaimed any intention of acting harshly towards
her. The witnesses, however, negatived the whole of
the facts which were attempted to be proved on these
points, and one of them stated that the defendant had
repeatedly declared, with an oath, " that he would do
what he liked, and have what lie liked."
Sir JAMICB SCARLITT, in addressing the Jury on the
part of the defendant, denied that his client had been
actuated by malicious motives towards the plaintiff.
The defendant was a most respectable man, and every
step he had taken in the proceedings was that of fora
bearaoce, and not oppression, towards the plaintiff. la
procuring the return of non est invents:, he had done
so, not only because he perceived it to be the proper
mode of proceeding, but because he was desirous that
the plaintiff should not be arrested under the writ of
sepias, and taken to prison. He had adopted this
course in mercy to the plaintiff, and he had received
advice from his agent in London that the proceeding
was perfectly regular. It however afterwards appeared
that be was mistaken, and for that mistake he had paid
between SOL and SOL in the shape of costs to the plain•
tiff, who haclprocured the judgment of outlawry to be
set aside. He had made repeated offers to the plaintiff'
to refer all matters in difference between them to any
person whom she might name; but all his offers had
been disdainfully rejected, and he had been obliged to
have recourse to the measures he had adopted, for the
purpose of asserting his rights, and protecting himself
in the enjoyment of his property. •
Several witnesses were called to prove that the plaint
tiff was apprized of the proceedings in the action o
replevin, and that offers of reference had been made
on the part of the defendant, which had been rejected
by the plaintiff. One witness stated, that he had called
on the plaintiff three several times for the purpose• of
prevailing on her to " make it up" with thed4 Pendant ;
and another stated, that during the progress of the
replevin action, he apprized the plaintiff of what was
going on, and told her that the defendant was wiling
to refer all disputes between them to the clergyman of
the place where she resided, or even to her own attornies,
if she chose; but that she declined this offer, saying
" she was not to be frightened."
A clerk of the defendant's London agent proved that
the different proceedings in the replevin action had been
adopted in the ordinary form, and that it was believed
at the time that the judgment of outlawry bad been
regularly obtained.
Lord TINTIRDSN, in summing up the case to the
Jury, observed that the main question for them to de-
termine was, whether the defendant, in procuring the
false return of non eat inventus to be made, had done
so designedly with a view so injure the plaintiff, or
through mistake, conceiving it to be the proper course
of proceeding ? If the Jury thought that he had acted
with a fair and honest intention of doing no more than
he conceived he was justified in doing, and not with
any design to injure and harass the plaintiff, their ver-
dict ought to be in his favour ; but it they thought that
he had acted from malicious =fives, with a view to
oppress the plaintiff, then they would find for her, with
such reasonable damages as a compensation for the
injury she had sustained, as they might think her fairly
entitled to.

The Jury. after conferring together for about five
minutet, returned a verdict for the plaiattlf—aimages

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Faa. 13.
Sittings after Hilary Term before Mr. Justice BA Y LIT and a
Common Jury.
ROLE& V. STANLEY.
The defendant in this case is a surgeon, residing in
Lincoln's Inn-fields. The plaintiff is a tailor and dra-
per, residing in Dean-street, Suho. The action was
brought to recover compensation for the injury which
the plaintiff had suffered by reason of the negligence
and want of skill exhibited by the defendant in his
manner of treating a fracture of the knee, which the
plaintiff
had received by a fall from his horse.
Mr. Pawn:son having opened the pleadings,
Mr. Sergeant Caoss stated the plaintiff's case. The
person who now sought compensation for Mr. S:anley'a•
negligence, was a young man, 25 years old, and, though
of a thin form, yet possessed of a very good constitu-
tion. On the 2d December, MO, having gone out to
ride, he was thrown violently from his horse, and fell
upon his right knee, which was very severely bruised,
and a considerable quantity of gravel enteied the flesh,
Mr. Stanley having been called in two or three hours
after the accident, found a considerable tumour and la-
ceration on the injured part, and a hind moveable sub.
stance under the skin. His attention having been parti-
cularly directed to this substance, he declared that the
patella or knee pan had been fractured, and that the
substance under the skin was a part of the broken bone;
and acting under this erroneous impression, he ordered
the limb to be pat into splints, in order that what
he supposed to be a piece of bone might re-unite itself
to the part from which it had separated. He continbed
his attendance for two months, during which time the
patient endured excruciating pain. At the end of that
time the wound healed externally, and the surgeon took
his departure from the patient, whom he left much
worse than he found him, much :educed in strength,
and cappled by the stone which had been sealed up in
his knee. lie (Mr. Sergeant Cross) was instructed to
state, that during the whole time of his attendance,
Mr. Stanley had never examined the tumour, though
he was told that it was the seat of continual pain. Tne
patient lingered in this condition for a long time, and
at last his knee swelled so as to be as big as his head ;
the inflammation was followed by suppuration and a
considerable discharge of matter. The patient then
grew something better, but a corroding ulcer was
formed at the place where the discharge had taken
this time the patient was attended by
fnamed Jenet, who, at length, in Septem-
apnla apothecary,
othDecuarriyn
Septem-
ber last (nine months after the occurrence of the acci-
dent) recommended the family of the plaintiff to call
in another surgeon. Mr. Charles Lilly was in conse-
quence applied to. Under that Gentleman's treatment,
the plaintiff's general health was considerably improved,
though the ulcer was not yet healed. As his strength,
however, began to increase, a piece of flint had gra.
dually worked its way to the surface, and having
reached the skin, Mr. Lilly made an incision over the
part, and extracted the flint. On two subsequent occa-
sions, two other pieces of flint were extracted; and the
state of the plaintiff had been vastly impkoved, in coa-
-1 setemice of the extraction of the stones from his knee,

4

although he was still lame, and, in other respects, not
perfectly recovered. He (Mr.-Sergeant Cross) thought
that he should prove to the Jury, that if Mr. Stanley had,
in the first instance, paid sufficient attention to his pa
tient, he would have discovered that the flints were
lodged in the wound, and, by removing them, have
prevented all the pain, injury, and expense, which the
plaintiff had suffered through his negligence. He be
lieved that Mr. Stanley, like persons in other professions,
having his hands too full of business, was sometimes apt
to do part of it negligently, and the rank of the patient
might have been the cause of his not having received all
the attention which he was otherwise entitled to. In
conclusion, he expressed a 'hope that the Jury would:
award his client such compensation as they considered
to be due to him for the injury which he had suffered.
The following witnesses were then called, and ex-
amined for the plaintiff:
Henry Garman deposed that he was a surgeon apo-
thecary. In December 1826, he found the plaintiff inert
cottage, in the neighboutho of Mi!e-end-road ;he had
fallen from hisborse about halt an hour before. When
witness saw him there was a considerable laceration on
the inside of the right knee, and a hard moveable sub-
stance under the knee pan. Witness washed the surface
of the wound, and used some simple applications; after
which he took him home to his (witness's) house. He
then sent fur Mr. Green, but that Gentleman not being
a home, a messenger was dispatched to Mr. Stanley, at
Lincoln's Inn Fields, and he arrived in about three
hours. Mr. Stanley having examined the wound with
his band, directed witness to put it into splints. The
wound was much swollen when Mr. Stanley arrived.
Thomas Rolfe, the father of the plaintiff, deposed.
follows: I was not present when Mr. Stanley-exact ined
the wound; but when he came down stairs; he told me
that my sou would have a stiff joint for life, and that I
should be well satisfied that the matter was no worse,
as there had been a shocking fracture of the patella,
and a fourth or ifth part of the bate had been broken'
off. • The splints were kept on for six days ; they were'
then removed, and Mr. Stanley bent the knee, 'which
caused such excruciating pain that he was obligidto
desist; when the splint was pressed against the hard
substance it made my on sick' with pain, who was al.'
ways pushing down the splint ; when this was told to
the defendant, he said he must have patience; that the
hard substance which caused so much pain was a' piece
of bone, which would ultimately' reunite to the knee
pan from which it had separated. During the first few
days, Mr. Stanley attended twice a day ; then came less
frequently, and on the 18th January resigned the patient,
saying that he could do nothing more for the mitiga-
tion of his sufferings, and that more depended on the
patient himself than on the surgeon; when the . patient
grew better, I e was sent to Hammersmidifor change of
-air ; the tumour ihen became as big as his head, and
discharged a great.qnantity of matter.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Tanne--,The plain-
tiff did net walk to Hammersmith, but went in a car-
nage; he returned in a fortnight.
Reexamined—Mr. Stanley had said, that he might

take more exercise as soon as he was able:
jn answer to a questinn by the Jut:wit—Ms
intima-
tion'was given to Mr. Stanley of the discharge which
bad taken place.
Mr. Charles Lilly, stirgeonln Sept, tuber, when I
was called in, I found the Plaintiff in a very feeble state;
there was a moveable' hard substance under the knee
pan', and near the surface; I recommended quietness,
and sr othing emollient poultices; in a month the plain-
tiff's health was much improved, and it the end of two
months, I found that rile-hard substance had advanced
so rear the skin that the point came through ; I enlarged
the orifice, and took out the Hot no* produced,and

afterwards a second ; a third piece cattle out in dressing ;

. _
the knee pan was certainly not fiactuted.
.... ' Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDIE—When I
lie-t saw the knee, I. thought the had substance was a
piece of bqne ; 1 could not imagine whence it came.,-=
Exei cite would tend to bring the SubstatiCe to the suf.
face;, the natural process wouttl• produce the saint
effect; it it were prudent in the; circumstances not to
make use of a probe, it 'made lin *difference as to the
• expediency of that course, whether the hard substance
. were bone or not.
t- been
Be-examined-1f the'llitst hadtotes out itt'firtt,
..
the Wound would hive'been healed when' I saw it. '
This Was the plaintiff's ease:" '
• • Mr. 8, reap!. TADDY iben rose to !rldreis The . Jury
for ibe'defet.sce." fie said that he felt allikin'the present
occasion the deepest anxiety, which, brisverier, resulted,
fromrather a conscroufness of biiimisiuinilidebef than
any view 'of the cause 'which he was 'Co acrikate.:,-
'Ho Learned Brother had insinuated that Mr. Stanley.
. bad neglected his patient because fie was not Operson of
high rank and great wealth. He would ask, *as there
any Of the learned professions, of which 'the members.
- Were so humane, so well inlormed, and so disinterested,'
• as that learned body to which he alladed? There was so
• rude ground, in fact, for such imputations, that it wit
Well known that the most eminent surgeons in London
bestowed' the highest poisible attention upon patients
froin whom they not only did not receive any reward,
but could not even expect any. The Learned Sergeant
then went throogh the plaintiff's evidence, and sheaved
that BM treatment originally directed by Mr. Stanley
had been approved of; and followed up by the other
surgical gentlemen who had the subsequent care of
the plaintiff; Supposing it to be true that Mr. Stan-
ley had known at first that the substance was not
bone, but a foreign substance, did his Learned Friend
mean to say, that even in that case the defendant ought
to have ventured upon making an incision for the pin.'
pose of extracting it? The Learned Sergeant intreated
of the Jury to consider in how critical a situation a sur-
geon of delicate feelings was placed by such circuits•
stances, and how liable be was to the iinput.itiois'of
interested motives in coninsuiug his iftendance tipon'ai
patient longer than be belieetd it ' to be absolutely ne-
cessary. He thought that, even upOn. the shewhig of
the plaintiff's witnesses, it was clear that Mr. Stanley
had neither done any thing_ that a ARO. and attostive:
surgeon ought not' to do, or
*onside, ali thing Which
such a surgeon would have priftiedieikand he therefore
with confidence anticipated a Vera( in his farotir.- '
Sir A.Cooper,who sat under the heUribilijai then sworn.,,
Mr. Sergeant Witux—Foi niil. offe opinion aleo-
getter from the statensenta Vr :I:7 been irrade by
the: plaintiff's wisnesies;. a. e thi.4 there is'
" any ground for imputing to Ne.Stanley'iny want of
. skill or attention in Iris treatinent:Of the plaintiff? '
• Sir A. COoper—None white*,
Mr. Sergeant WILDs—If Mr. Stanley had, In the first
instance, dis Covered (hat qie. substanie. which caused
the violent pain was not a pct. 'of Ipsh,aikOivia,sepani but a
foreign substance, Whati-e"orsit: in Id it
haven. hi. your ittdsOga(reniesr.to
.0161341:.".
Sir A. Cooper:ThelTii taiiiiii, whicri•.*: Siaally
has pursued. If Mr. Stanley wail unable to distiniiiiih
whether the sibstapce enclosed was part of ti bone.,
or a foteirthsubstanee;j shOuld consider that perion io
be very prestuntotneni labit.rahiruld a lteinpt. to dee:tle
the question, as it is well known to all the members of