Star.
London, England, 1821-12-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 14.
THE KING V. DREW.
This was an indictment against the defendant for
ilful and corrupt perjury. Tile perjury alleged was,
at the defendant had sworn before a Committee of
[louse of Commons that Colonel John Bailey had
offered him £2O or £SO as an inducement to him to
give him his'Vote for the Borough of Hedon, in York-
shire. during an election which took place for that
Borough, in April, 1820.
• Mr. SCARLETT stated the case to the Jury,and called
Colonel Bail ey,who. was examined, and denied that he
had eve, male the defendant such an offer as that to
which he bad sworn.
Cross-examined by Mr. Towrow.—He did go to the
house of the defendant, and said to him, you were
hostile to me on a former occasion ; I hope you will
be friendly to me on this." Witness had relieved per-
sons when in distress, but had no view in so doing to
electioneering purposes. He had paid £5OO for tavern
expenses. Had heard that the electors of Hedon would
expect money for their votes after the election was
over. When he went to canvas Drew he was accom-
panied by a person named Clifford. The defendant's
father had a vote, but witness did not canvas him ;
he called twice on Drew with Clifford; believed he
went a third time alone.
R. Clifford accompanied Colonel Bailey to Drew's
house. No money was offered to him: money was
not mentioned at all.
W. Wells was in town at the time Drew was exa-
niined, and after the examination they went together
to a public-home to the Attorney, to get his expenses
for him. Drew complained the money offered was
not sufficient ; and said, if he had known they would
have treated him so ill, he would not have come to
town at all. Colonel Bailey never gave him any money.
Cross-examined.—Did wit say before the Commit-
tee, that he waited on Colonel Bailey's voters at
Storey's Tavern after the Election.
Mr. Tun Torr then objected to the terms of the in-
dictment ; the defendant was charged with having
perjured himself before a Committee of the Lower
House of Parliament ; he had made inquiries, and
could not learn that Lower house of Parliament was
a pro;-,er description of the House of Commons.
The LORD CHIEF Arm ee overruled the objection.
Mr. Tuftroa then addressed the Jury at consider-
able length, on behalf of the defendant, and dwelt
particularly upon the circumstance of Colonel Bailey's
third visit to Drew's house. when he went alone.
The Crime Jt.”.;TIGE summed up, and the Jury
found the defendant—Guilty.
TILE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.
THE KING V. DOLBY.
This was an indictment against the defendant for,
publishing a supposed libel, of and concerning his
Majesty, prosecuted at the instance of the Society of
of persons calling themselves ‘• The Constitutional
Association."
The case of the King. v. Thelwall, Esq. had stood
first on the list of the Association' cases appointed for
trial this day, but for some reason the King v. Dolby
took precedence. The Special Jury List reduced for
the trial having been'called over, only three Gentle-
men appeared ; upon which
Mr. GURNEY said he would pray a tales; and
prayed it accordingly.
Mr. SCARLETT.—My Lord, as Mr. Conley has
prayed a tales in this stage of the business, I propose
to challenge the array for unindifferency in one oldie
Sheriffs, who has returned the Common Jury panel.
I am instructed that John Garratt, E,q. Alderman,
and High Sheriff of the County of Middlesex, who
has returned the panel from which the talesnien are
now to be chosen, is one of the subscribers towards
defraying the expense of this prosecution ; that he is
a member of the Constitutional Association, and con-
sequently that be is not competent to return a panel
to try this indictment, it being a prosecution of his
own. I take this objection on the authority of a case
in Leach's Crown Cases, the King v. Smith.
Mr. GURNEY,—The regular way is to challenge
the array.
The CHIEF JUSTlCE.—Certainly it is. I understand
Mr. Scarlett to be stating his objection as matter of
challenge to the array. I suppose, Mr. Scarlett, you
are prepared to present your challenge?
Mr. ScAßLETT.—Certainly, my Lord.
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—Then hand it in.
Mr. SCARI.!.TT handed in his challenge, which was
reduced to writing on paper, and read by the Clerk
at Nisi Prius, to the following effect:
" And hereupon the said Thomas Delby prays judgment of
the panel of the tales aforesaid, because, he says, that he is pro-
secuted by certain persons, styling themselves The Constitu-
tional Association.' and that the said panel of the tales has been
made by -- Venables and John Garratt, Esquires, Sheriffs
of the County of Middlesex • and be says, that the said John
Garratt, Fay. at the time of making the said panel, was me
of the subscribers to the said Association, and one of the prose-
cutors of this indictment, which he is ready to verify ; wherefore
be prays judgment that the said panel may be quashed."
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—Does Mr. Gurney propose
to demur to this challenge?
Mr. GURNEY requested to see the challenge, and it
having been handed to him, he said—Properly speak-
ing, it ought to be on parchment, and not on paper.
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—Of course the panel will be
put into the form in which the defendant means here-
after to abide.

Mr. SCARLETT.—T am somewhat surprised at such
an objection. Whether the challenge is on paper or
on parchment, signifies nothing at this moment. Cer-
tainly it will afterwards be reduced to parchment,
and must be made a part of the record like other
proceedings.
The CHIEF JUSTIOE.—Do you demur, Mr. Gurney ?
Mr. GURNEY.—No, my Lord ; I take the issue
upon the fact stated in the challenge.
Mr. Sc. KLETT.— My Lord, I do not require my
friend to put his joinder of issue into form. Tryers
must be sworn,but some person must return those tryers.
The CHIEF JusTicE.—The Court appoints tryers.
That was the course adopted at Maidstone some years
since. On that occasion two of the Gentlemen of the
Jury, who were not challenged, were appointed tryers.
In this case three of the Special Jurymen appear, and
I don't know that I can appoint more proper persons
than two of those Gentlemen. There can be no objec-
tion to them.-

Mr. ScAntarr.—My Lord, I apprehend the chal-
lenge goes to the Special Jury as well as to the Com-
mon Jury panel.
The CHIEF Jusrics.—No, Mr.Scarletta it does not,

;go to the Special Jury. Their appointment k an act
of the Conn, and not of the Sheriff. Your challenge,
is as to the array of the tales. It seems to me that
two of the Gentlemen who have appeared are as in-
different persons as can well be selected. I really
Mentioned 'them as being two of the most indif-

ferent persons.
Mr. GURNEY—At Maidstone, Mr. Justice BuHeti
said, that the usual course was to take some of the
officers of the Court as tryers.
The Cuter JUSTICE—It seems to me that I cannot
elect two more indifferent persons.
William Fisher, Esq. and James Taplin, Esq. two
of the Gentlemen abovementioned, were then sworn,
" well and truly to try whether, at the time of making
the panel in question, John Garratt, Esq. one of the
Sheriffs of the County of Middlesex, was one of the
prOsecutors of this indictment," pursuing the words of
the challenge.
Mr. SCARLETT shortly opened his case in support
of the challenge, and proposed to shew, that Mr.,
Alderman Garratt, at the time the panel was made,
was a Member and Subscriber of the Association,',
and consequently incompetent to make a return. The,
following. witnesses were then called :
Mr. Nettlefold, Attorney for the defendant, de-
posed, that he attended before the Master of the I
Crown Office, to reduce the Special Jury panel, for
the trial of this indictment, in May last, but before
he did so, he required of Mr. Murray, the Solicitor
for the prosecution, a list of the names of the Consti-
tutional Association, Mr. Murray having informed
him that that Association were the prosecutors. In
consequence of this requisition, Mr. Murray sent him
a list on the 29th of May, which the witness now
produced. In that list he found the names of Sir
George Garratt, and John Garratt, Esq. Alderman.
Opposite the latter Gentleman's name was a subscrip•
Lion of five guineas, and opposite that of the former,
a subscription of one guinea. Witness knew Alder
man Garratt as a public man. He believed that the
Alderman Garratt mentioned as a subscriber in that
list, was one of the present Sheriffs of Middlesex,
and the Gentleman who had returned the panel in
question. The indictment was found by the Grand
Jury on the 16th of May.
Mr. S. Roberts deposed, that he was present at
Guildhall, London, at the last Election of Sheriffs
for Middlesex and London, in the mon I► of June.
On the first day of the poll, he heard Alderman Gar-
ran, one of the candidates for the shrievalty, declare
in a speech from the hustings, that he had been a
Member of the Constitutional Association, but that
since he had become an Alderman, he had withdrawn
his name, conceiving it incompatible with his situa-
tion as Alderman, to continue among them, as hr
might possibly be a judge in his own cane, in hi!.
capacity of Magistrate ; he had, therefote, ceased to
be a Member of the Society. The worthy Alderman
had been pretty sharply handled by the Livery on
that occasion, and this declaration had proceeded
from him, in consequence of the opinion sshich they
hadexpressed as to his conduct, in becoming a Aim- 1
ber of the Association. Ott the third day of the
Election, however, the worthy Alderman retracted
his words. Witness could not state precisely in what
language the Alderman retracted his previous de•
elaration ; lie could not even state the substance of
what he said ; it was in the course of a si.eech !torn
the hu,tings.
C're.l's•esntniaed.—The Alderman had been pretty
sharply handled in the Hall. There was some noise
in the Hall, but not much for a Comn:on Hall.—
There were five or siX hundred persons present.—
They were tolerably quiet; he could not recol•
lect one word of what the Alderman said, when he
retracted, as the svitiiess had before expressed him-
self. The Alderman did on that occasion say, instead
of retracting, that he had ceased to be a Member of
the Association for a week before. Mr. Garratt had
been an Alderman for some short time before.
This was the case in support of the challenge.
Mr. GURNEY then addressed the Jury on behalf of
the prosecution, and expressed his surprise at the ob-
jection sshich had been taken on behalf of the de-
fendant. As it had been taker., however, lie trusted
he should be able to shew most satisfactorily, that it
was without foundation in fact. He should shew, by
the evidence of the worthy Alderman himself, that
he was not a Member of the Association at the time
the panel was returned. It was very true that be
had been a subscriber, but he had nothing whatever
to do with the details of the proceedings of the So-
ciety, and almost the moment he became an Alder-
man he withdrew his name. He had now nothing
to do with the Society, and was as indifferent as
any other public officer could be with respect to this
prosecution.
Mr. Alderman GAItRATT, who was in atteodance
in Court, was then tendered as a witness ; n;!en which
Mr. SCARLETT interposed, and objected that he
was not a competent witness in this issue, being di-
rectly interested in the result, and in fact a party
to the issue, which was, whether he was or was not
indifferent?
A leng desultory discussion then took place as to
the Sheriff's competency. No cases were cited on
either side bearing upon the question. The point was
discussed upon general principles, and at length,
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, there being no authority
cited on either side, I think the safer course is to con-
sider the witness incompetent. I do not, however,
by any means, pledge myself that the fact is so. It
is a point that deserves much further consideration,
and I beg to say that I do not decide anything : and
I wish that it may not be considered as a precedent
tq be acted upon hereafter.
Mr. Sharpe was then tendered as a witness.
Examined by Mr. SCARLETT on the voir dire—l
believe, Mr. Sharpe, you at least are a prosecutor in
this case—there is no doubt of that? I apprehend
there is no doubt of it.
Mr. SCARLETT submitted to the Court that Mr.
Sharpe was clearly incompetent as a witness; for he
had an interest in supporting the Sheriff if he could.
The Cntee JUSTICE—Such an objection might be
taken in every possible case. No, I don't think I
can reject him.
Mr. Sharpe then deposed, that in December last
the Constitutional Association was formed. In May
and June last, Mr. Sheriff Garratt was a Member of
the Association ; in May I know he was, and as far
as lean recollect, I think he was in the month of
June ; but he certainly was in May, I think through
the whole month of May ; he ceased to be so some
time before he was•elected Sheriff; but I cannot take

upon myself to say how long he ceased to be a Mem-
ber before he became Sheriff; he did not act in .the
Society, he only subscribed five guineas ; be never at-
tended any of the Meetings of the Society.
Cross-examined by Mr. ficaaczni—What are you?—l am Ho-1
' norm Assistant-Secretary (4 burst of laughterthrough the Court).
That is not your way of business : I ask you what you are—
what is your business?—l mean to say, that I maintain that
situation in the Constitutional Association.
Yes; but what business do you follow?—I am not in any
business.
Then this is your only business ?—I have no business whatever.
You live on your fortune?-4 live on means that I possess.
Were you ever in any business?—l was in the Manchester
trade—the cotton trade.
How long ago?—'lwo years.
Had you ever any other business?—l never had any other
business.
And you have been two years without any business?—Yes.
You say that Alderman Garratt became a Member of this
Association by subscribing his money ?—Yes.
That was the case with a great many people, J believe?—Yes.
Have you returned the Alderman his money ?—1 ant not
aware that the money has been returned to him.
What has become of it?—lt went into the general fund of the
Society, amongst the other subscriptions.
Were you Treasurer?—No; Mr. Alderman Atkins is.
Why do you say that Alderman Garratt ceased to be a Mem-
ber of the Association?—lle did cease.
The Loan Unice Jusnce—What act did he do?—He ad-
dressed a letter to me, as Secretary, upon the subject.
Have you got that letter here?—No, I have it not here : it is
amongst the papers at gte Society's Office.
Was that printed Address circulated by you (A printed paper
handed to the iritness)?-1' es, it was circulated by me.
The Address was not tendered in evidence.
Mr. Scatterre thanked Mr. Gurney's witnesses for the sup-
port they had given to the defendant's case.
This was the case for the prosecution to support
the negative of the issue in question.
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the tryers in reply, and
contended, that, on Mr. Gurney's own sheaving, the
challenge was made out; for it appeared that at the
time the panel was made the Sheriff was a Member
of this Association, and for anything that appeared
to the contrary, he was at this instant a Member.
The Loan Curer JUSTICE, in his charge to the
tryers, observed, that in the trial of this issue there
was nothing whatever which could in the slightest
degree cast any reflection upon the personal charac-
ter and conduct of the Sheriff. Throughout the
whole inquiry there had been nothing suggested
which ounht to give him any pain or uneasiness. It
was simply a question of fact, whether, at the time
the panel was made, he was a Member of this Asso-
ciation? On the part of the defendant, it was
averred in the challenge that he was a Member: this
was denied on the part of the prosecution; but his
Lordship observed, that it was the duty of those who
ished to support the negative of the proposition to
chew, by the most distinct, clear, and satisfactory
evidence, that the Sheriff was not a Member. Had
such evidence been adduced?' It was for the tryers
to declare, by their verdict, whether he was or was
not a Member of the Association at the period stated.
The tryers deliberated a few minutes, and found
their verdict in support of the challenge, thereby af-
firming the fact that the Sheriff was a prosecutor at
the time the panel was made.
A burst of satisfaction broke forth from the audi-
tory the moment the Jury declared their verdict.
the CHIEF JUSTICE—The course now is, to return
the proceedings on the post en . This and the other
cases in which the like objection exists, must there-
fore stand over.
Mr. GURNEY—If your Lordship pleases.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—The proper course is to
make them all remanets to the next Sittings.
Mr. Thelwall presented himself to the notice of
the Court, and said, that notwithstanding the objec-
tion which had been taken to the indictment, he had
rather be tried that instant by a Jury, however con-
stituted, even if it consisted of the Members of the
Association themselves, than that this prosecution
should continue to hang over him.
Mr. ScaRLETT begged to observe, that he was net
Counsel for the Gentleman who was now addressing
the Court.
The Loan Curer JUSTICE—IS it your desire to
waive your challenge, and that your trial should
come on immediately? It is undoubtedly compe-
tent to you to make your election now, or, if you'
think tit, the Court will give you till to-morrow to
consider the course you may deem it expedient to take.
' Mr. Thelwall said he should certainly wish to con-
sult with his professional adviser before he decided;
but he did not wish the case to stand over finally
this day, so as to preclude him from bringing on his
own trial immediately. He was about to enter into a
detail of the sufferings he had endured during the
progress of this prosecution, when
the LORD CHIEF Jusrice said, it was unnecessary
to say any more on the present occation. The case
would stand over until to-morrow, and, that the Jury
might not have the trouble of attending upon an un-
certainty, the defendant must then be prepared to
say whether he would waive his challenge and pro-
ceed
.to trial immediately.
Mr. Thelwall thanked the Court, and retired.
The names of the several Jurymen who wouldhave
tried the indictments brought by the Constitutional
Association, werethen read over proforma, that every
S:,ecial Juryman in attendance might receive his
guinea, which was paid by Mr. Murray in Court.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 13.
MAIBIN V. SADLER. •

The plaintiff in this case is a livery-stable-keeper at
Brighton; the defendant is thi proprietor of an exten-
sive repository for horses in Goswell-street. It appeared
that in August last the plaintiff let a horse and gig to
a young man named Durant, to go from Brighton to
London, and from thence to Southampton, for eight
days. The time expired, and neither Durant nor the
hot se were heard of. In consequence a reward was
offered for the recovery of the -property. After a long
and laborious search, the horse was recognized as one
of four, harnessed to a coach from Dartford to Lon-
don. rom inquires made there, the horse was traced
to a Mr. Bray, who purchased it from Mr. Sadler, by
whom it was sold for Durant in August. It appeared
that it was put up for sale at Sadler s by Durant, and
notbringing the expected sum,wasbought in by Durant
himself. It was, however, afterwards sold by private
sale to Mr. Bray. To recover the property from Mr.
Sadler, it having been sold by him, the present action
was brought. The value claimed for the horse was £3O.
It further appeared that Mr. Sadler, on being applied
to by Mr. Maibin, and told that the horse was his, of-
fered to have it given up, provided that £3O were
paid to hiM, and he would forego the 30s. his commis-
sion on the sale. This fact was relied on as proof of the
sale by Mr. Sadler. The horse, gig, and harness, were

sold for 50 guineas, but the gig and harness were
got back by the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHItN, for the defendant, con.
tended, first, that a conversion of the property by
Mr. Sadler was not sufficiently established to tender
him liable to the action ; secondly, that the identity of
the horse was not sufficiently made out; and lastly,
j that it did not appear clearly that the plaintiff had
not made the sale of the horse and gig conditional to
Durant, upon its not being returi:ed by him wit.4a
j the eight days. To support this view of the case,
he called—

Mr. Sadler's clerk, who proved that the horse was
put up to sale at his employers' by desire of pnt,„.
and was bought in by Durant himself for sixte„;
guineas and a half. He (Durant) then t‘-ck tin:More
and gig from the Repository, and sold them for thirty
guineas to Bray, outside the door.
On his cross•examication by Mr. Sejeant Tiamv,
Ire said that the sale of the horse and gig w 4
ai ~...
ivards booked by Mr. Sadler, and charged in M,
Bray's monthly account. Mr. Sadler charged thiny
shillings as his commission.
Mr. Bray, to whom the horse was sot!, was text
called ; and he stated, that Nt hen Maibin applied to
him first res;.ccting the horse, he (!;ray). in a I.„is
take, brought cut ancv.het horse, ninth Maibin said
was the one he sought. tie admitted, however, tha
on seeing the real horse, he immediately recognized
him as the one which he had let to Durant.

Mr. Serjeant 'FADDY replied to evidence; nrd
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, the Jury
returned a verdict for the pl.tintiff—Dain:igt:

DEC. 14.--..-CORK V. BATT AND ()Timis.

Mr. Serjeant LENS ,tated, that this waS an actin
brought by the plaintiff to recover L(100, bvin,4
amount of a sum of !Loney given to the plaintiff:ma
his wife by a deed of a Mrs. Henley, lately decea,ea,
independently of any legacy c(:atained to her w 44
under which the defenda.:ts were executors. The
wife of the plaintiff Wai NI: s. Henley's niece, andilut
Lady had always expressed a particular affectian4.
wards her.

Mr. Webb, the plaiff's Attorney, proved the
hand-writing of Mrs. Henley, and the due exeNtio:
of the deed. On his cross-examination, he de,.nsed
that Mts. Henley, at the time of executing the deed,
was in the perfect enjoyment of her faculties. Wit.
ness had read the deed over to her before she afsn4
her name to it; he had also explained the dismr!
parts as he proceeded. There bad not beta the
slightest attempt to deceive her as to the natutenf
the instrument.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGMAW, for the defendants, then
addressed the Court, and observed, that hi, chests
had only been induced by a sense of duty to all pr.
ties to btit.,g this case to a public inve,,igati.o,
cause they had believed that Mm Henley, at thetime
of executing the deed, was not aware of its nat,,ieet
effect. The evidence of Mr. Webb wai.satistfc:.l
on that point, and he therefore submitted to a verdict
for the plaintiff.

OLD BAILFY.

Yesterday, John Long (aired.' y twice convicted fon
similar offet:cet) was indicted for stealing, and Jodi
Rideout, for receiving, knowing it to have been stolen,
twenty-two yards of paper-hanging, the property ai
Thomas and William Cox.

The prosecutors are exteQsive paper-hanging•mo
nufacturers, in Playhouse-yard, IVhitecross-street,ani
Long was their porter, and had been so fur the le,:
seven years. In October they received an anointnom
letter, informing them that they were plunderel as
large extent by Long, and in consequence the ;:6!ize
officers were employed to watch him. They follss
him on the morning of the 13th of October toh
Lion and Lamb public-house, in Gulden-late, thts
kept by a man namod Wayman, and in which Rik.
out, who was Wayinan's brother-in-law, reided.-
Long, on entering the house, took a roll rf pipe-
hanging from under his apron, and delivered as
Itideour, who was in the bar, and the latter pct's
under the counter. The officers went in, and old
for the paper which he had just revived from Lail.;
and he denied knowing anything a4c.ut it. 'find-
cers called to his recollection that he had just tats
it from Long ; but he still denied it ; and they tba
searched under the counter, and took out the pipe
in question; and Itideout, seeming to recollect his.
self, said, he had taken it from Lung, but he hie
really forgotten the circumstance. On examisit
the house, the officers found it papered from top to
bottom, with the paper-hanging belonging to thepm
secutors, and which must have been stolen byLosg.
Hideout, in his defence, declared his ignoranceths
the paper was stolen; and accounted for his denialta
the officers by saying, that he bad forgotten. is
hurry of business, having taken the paper.
Long made no defence.
The Jury found bah the prisoners Guilty.
The same two prisoners were again put upon this
trial with Waymn, the landlord of the Liusvi
Lamb, when nearly the same evidence was addetti
It was proved that Wayman had acknowle44
buying paper from Long which -was, at cost pg 4
nine-pence per yard, for tive-pence.
The Jury found the prisoners Guilty.
The following were also convicted of felony, viz.—Ann k
king and Illary Quinion, for stealing 26 rids of Irish lit;
Abraham Myers and RObert Day, for stealing four rup; /14
Baylis, for stealing two napkins, &c. (sentenced to be find!
shilling and discharged) ; Mary Brett, for stealing two
rings; John Maul, for stealing ills. of ginger; Ann Jul"
for stealing 7s. 641. Robert Jackson, for stealing ZOlbs. of ME
John Haydon, for stealing 10s. John Driscoll, for steslinglik.
net; Samuel Chip, for stealing a handkerchief; Sarah 6.64
for stealing a watch, &c. Caroline Butterworth, lot 1.1041
shawl; Sarah Taylor, fur stealing a shirt; Thomas Wait
for stealing two loaves; Thomas Parkins, for stealingl
James Newby and Samuel Schofield, for attempting $
three pair of stockings; John Morris, for stealing two pr,.
brass rings ; John Lynch, for stealing three boots • An
man, for stealing two spoons ; and Henry Blacksball, few
ing a hat.

DIED.
Wednesday, at Brighton, Phu be Hassell, aged 111Teti
His Majesty had, for the last seven or eight yeas, albsw
deceased 10s. 6d. a week.

COUNTRY MARKETS.
Ozroito, Dec. 13.—Wheat, per bushel, Os. Od. Prier di°
half-peck Loaf (Wheaten) h. Bd.
Decamp., DEC. n.—Wheat, per load, £7 Os to 11601::
New Wheat, £7 to £l6 Os—Barley, per quarter, 10
245--o.Bs, 16s to 24a—Beans, 22s to 83s.—Rye. O tell"
Peas, 28s to 325.

_______---------- I
HIGH-WATER at LONDON BRIDGE TO4oo°
Morning - 11 minutes *furl
- r
Attervonn - 54 ----. • . . . •
..'."'"77:5...=.........-.......'

rg

.4!

Mi
i

ebm
ties
or
•

*5l
SI
II
SI

se 1
161
• 9
11
11
•17 1

rid*
L) DO ; rrinted and published by LEM. Kah
pace, Temple 2u.

it.th
)1111
VW'