The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-04-06 00:00:00

..

•

,_~~-

-.3 . ... .

..I=l=lll2=2=2l=l=l.l6_
such had been the case. If it had' appeared that the
mother and daughter had contrived an interview of
the kind, to entrap the affections of the' yoeog
man, that would have formed a case 'on which
the Plaintiff would not have been entitled to ma-
terial damages. After the first invitation there came
a second ; the first bad not been accepted. He
thought he might mike the observation, that there did
not seem to be any extraordinary haste on the pirt
of the mother to go to Kirkland-hall. There then
came a second invitation, and she and the Plaintiff
went to the Defendant's mansion, and remained.,
there some time. After their return, namely, on
the 30111, the letter was written which the Jury had
heard read. It was a letter which had been very
properly characterised ; it was oat filled with the
warm expressions of a young man over. bead and
ears in love, bat it was a cool, considerate, calculat-
ing letter, on a subject which the writer was revolv-
ing in his mind. No. doubt it was theietter of a
pen to a woman older than himself. He would
put it to the Jury whether such a letter was not
likely to make a stronger impresiio* on s young
woman than if it had contained all the expressions
of warmth usually dictated by the heat and impetuosity
of youth. It seemed to be the letter of a man with
an understanding beyond his years. Stich was the
bearing which the letter appeared to him- to.warrant,
aid th- Jury would take it into their considerstioo.
There was an expression made use of by the De-
fendant, to the effect, that he ought not to be called
upon to make a settlement, from which Mr. Scarlet.
bad inferred that the Plaintiff's mother had called
upon him to make a settlement.npon her daughter. lie
did-not think such an inference necessarily followed.
The Defendant, addressing, the Lady, might na-
turally say—" You are about to be:married ; your
friends will naturally think there should he a settle-
ment, coosiderinumy situation in point of fortune;
bet I urn told by my legal advisers that I ought not
be called upon to make a settlement." The eaves-
sipn did not necessarily imply that a settlement had
been a subject of consideration by the mother. To
this Jitter an answer had been written by, the Plain-
tiff, by no means an improper lettstr ;
_it wsicooched
in prudent termsy,accepting the Defendant's offer.—
It was suggested that the Pleiutiff had kept a
copy of that letter, hut if she hail, it was not a
circumstance on, which any stress could he laid.
--a—Some persons were in the habit of writing
their letters rapidly ; some were not : persons of
the latter description might chose to write a rough.
copy. The Plaintiff might have done so, and she
might afterwards have:treasured it op without har-
ing oily view to her ultimate disappointment, or of
her being under the necessity of coming to a Court
of Justice to ask for damages. There had been a
sabseqtteot correspondence, and in the month of
Miry _ the Plaintiff was again at the • Defendant's
house. Before that period there hail been an ex-
press invitation to the Plaintiff, but it said nothing
on the subject of the Plaintiff's mother. It stated
that the carriage should be at Preston, and that
if the Plaintiff chose to bring her maid, it might be
determined whether she was likely to be approved
of. The Plaintiff had refused to attend to that
invitation, and in his opinion she bad dune right.—
It was not the conduct of a woman throwing her-
self into the arms of a men; but it was the conduct
of a women who had • foresight, and .w ha would not
do so imprudent a thing as to go to the house even
of, bet expetted future husbatiri,
.without the pre.
WK. and sanction of so near a relation as her ano-
ther; -act was acting with a becoming prudence. The
advice of her brother on that subject was most (Kul
dent advice, and .the adopted it. It appeared she
• witerwarcis went to Kirkland.hall, and remained there
a fortnight., On the 26,11 of. May she return's! home,
and on the Ist of-June that letter was written, which,
it appeara•viss the last communication from the De-.
fetidant _to the, Plaintiff. The first invitation bad been
giseu the beginning of February.; the parties met on
the Bib March, mid were together about e fortnight.
Letters and correspondence bad been proved, by which.
it was manifest the Defendant had professed ell the
ogrmtb of affection ' • it was quite obvious that he was
preparing for a,speedy. marriage. Why it had been
broken off,
,the Jag were left entirely in doubt.
—Was there any fault in the lady Nothing of
the kind was insinuated. What had been passing in
the Defendant's mind they were, not told--it was a,
perfect blast. On the 20th of Aug. the Defendant
bad married another lady, in consequence of which
thapresent action had been brought. It had been
suggested that, fictions of this kind by ladies were
very OOCNTOROn. It sometimes happened that a lady'
might rhink it better to stifle her disappointment,
%hen .make it a subject of discussion ; but in a case
where it had been quite notorious to the world, that
marriage was on the eve of taking place, and that it
104 been broken Off, a consideration of what was due
au,-ber pvin character might urge het to bring it for.
ward itta'Cgert of Justice • not only for the Vindi-
cation of tier: honour, and character, but that if
weeny thing in her conduct which afforded a ground
ruby wuriagq. should not go on, it might be de-
elated, Of Chat hoo appear to the world there was
no foundeitien foe that ,calumny chick .was always
tecetrect of. e .SlMe's abrupt desertion of a lady to
whom be eusa.botgotbed? He bad thus:made the
seseetious which ad occurred to him. The promise
of marriage had been clearly
,prored, end it was
evoke clear
..that the contract ;Ilea received the
tancliou td their mutnal.parents,. Tie 40ry. week!
estimate the flamers to which the Nintiff was end-'
tied fur. the. i4l cry she bad received. The, briery
copsisted i 0.1145, that instead of being
,Mrs. Cole,
site mistress of .-liikkisnd-haU, she was still Miss Or.
ford. Whether she would have been happier as. the
Defendant's wife, was a question they could not well
take into their coosideratioo.. However he,might bit
represented, he was the behead she
.had lost, and it
was for the injury she had thereby..aesteined she 4.;
!Soda couipensation, But for his iliwitifiable
duct, he would have been her husband and she his
wife, with that splendid establishment the wife of
map of his fortune might be entitled to expeet.
.11e.wsui a man, according ,to the testimony of his
steward, enjoying between
,4 and 6001. a .year;
the . Plaintiff would have been the wife of • man
,with,, that.. !Piton', and with that establishmgot,
belonged to her rank in society'
hit Thise felonies's she had lost. ff
Defendant wis'a man who ois not likely. tcrnaktikiii
_good husband, iu that cpse the incumbratice of.a

.

.

..c;11

TAUNTON.

.

oferwpwr-71---.
*

bat 11011blibit teals such a biller cop, that' peehapst
she aright have sustained no injury ; but let the.
Joey Weill to the letters, they would inform them,
'whet sort of ir man the lady had lost, True they
were not: the- letters, of an ardent lover, but they.
'were the lettere oft cool, caleolating, dieeriminating
iawderstandtrig: the Jury would take them into their
consideration: With regard to the Defendant, he
stood in a very unfavourable point of view. He
would have no right to complain if the Jury should
draw largely on his bank. What bad he done ? He
'had drawn a lady to kirklsod-hall, that she might
see the establishment she hod a right• to rowed
'would shortly be heirown. Ile had gone on sinus-
log her for a.period of two' months, under the es-
•pectation that she was to be the mistress of his esta-
blishment ; and then, without any reason, he had
married another woman. Ile would, therefore, have
no right to comylaiii, whatever damages might be
awardirPagainst him. With reference to the amount
of the-themes, he would only observe, that the Jury
ought In be liberal, rather than penurious.
Thp Jury retired, and, returning into Court in
Oiate- quarter of an hour, pronounced their verdict
for the Plaintiff—Damages,. :::even 'Thousand Pounds.
This trial had been the sulijert of general conver-
sation throughout the county of Lancaster for sm..
Jai months pest, and persons of all ranks appeared
to be interested in the result. Crowds were col-
Inlet' at every avenue of the Court, and the doors
were scarcely thrown open, than the Court, spacious
as it is, and capable of containing 42000 persons, was
instantly filled. The ladies were conspicuous in all
parts of the Court, having braved every danger to
gain admittance. Tit verdict which bestowed so
considerable an addition of fortune on the fair suitor,
was hailed with universal satisfaction.
On the subsequent morning, Mr. `CA It LETT moved
for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not
be'grantecl. Re submitted his application nn two
grounds : —lst, That the letters containing the con-
tract of marriage hid net been duly .stamped, as he
had contended on the trial they ought to have been.
And 2dly, on the ground of excessive damages. It
was upon the latter ground be principally relied.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY was of opinion that, the ob-
jection of the Learned Counsel, as to the letter con-
taining the contract requiring a stamp, had •not the
least validity. Upon the question of excessive da-
mages, he was likewise of opinion there had not been
sufficient grounds laid before the Court to disturb
the verdict. Taking all the circumstances of the
case into his consideration, he was not prepared to
say, that if it had been put to the option of the
young lady to hews received the Defendant as her
husband in preference to the 70001. which had been
awarded her, she would not have chosen to have ac-
cepted him rather than damages to that or any other'
amount. If, then, it was likely that she had the
election, she might have preferred becoming his wife,
how could he state that the Jury had estimated the
damages at a higher rate than they ought to base
done? What was the injury for which the damages
had been given ? The injury consisted in the loss of
a husband of the description and ample fortune of the
Defendant. If there had been any part of the lady's
conduct, from which it could reasonably have been
inferred that she was striving to marry the estate in-
steadef the man, that might have been a ground for
sayingithe was not entitled to so large a remunera-
tion in the shape of damages, for she would then
have been acting from an unworthy motive, which
neither the Court nor the Jury could have santioned.
But, looking about the case in every point of view,
he could see nothing upon which to cast blame on
the lady's conduct. Upon the whole, he thought he
ought not to disturb a verdict dispassionately given,
in a case where, if he had been 0110 of the Jury, he
might himself have been inclined to have awarded
even larger damages.—The rule for a new trial was
accordingly refused.

SOMERSET ASSIZES.

THOMAS v. TYSER.
This was an action brought to recover damages
from the Defendant, for criminal conversation with
the Plaintiff's wife. The damages were laid in the
declaration at 50001. Mr. AflooßE opened the plead-
ings:
Mr. GASELEL stated the case.—The Plaintiff, he
said, was under the painful necessity of asking for a
compensation in damages for a loss that was irrepa-
rable -4 compensation, as far ass Jury could give it,
for the injury he had sustained by the seduction of a
wife, and the consequent deprivation of all the com-
forts of the matrimonial state. Upon a case of such'
a description, it would be an idle waste of time to
make any general observations. Those whom he ad-
dressed, were most of them married men, and able to
judge of the felicities arising from the affection of
those to whom their destinies were united. God for.
bid that any of them should ever be brought to the
dreadful extremity of deciding from experience of the
Miseries of infidelity.. Their opinions, he hoped,
would' hsralways. the•result of the happiness they en.
joyed In the reciprocal intercourse of affection, and
not proceeding from the horrors atteudant upon the
violation of rights, iu comparison with which, all
others were unimportant. The Plaintiff, Proctor
WilllatirThismat, was a Clergymen, who was horn in
this county ; he was a respectable member of that
most respectable profession. The Defendant was a
physician ; it Was one df the aggravated circumstances
of thelase, that he was of the medical profession,
and•that he had attended the Plaintiff's wife as sack
tiawai; therefore, guilty of thii More serious crime
for, in addition to the ordltiary restraints by milk!?
the conduct of men should be regulated; there was an
4bligation inconsideration of the confidence necessa.
rity reposed in the profession. Tii• Defendant was also
a mitred- man with'. famAy,:4lo.ll.abould have pre-
feinted MM. from committing se lat in which another
remit, ri'oelff Sir lfer beyond all Voialbffity of redress.
11rOnitte Oskar in evidence, that *Plaintiff *ata
l'dirlittistisprtrtinn of the chtlie.fi;llfrlymouth, and
4ati bemobligeff to ibielit fißlo Moro to per-
. .64 $l.l dstifea; in& ibrft flit ndpiiiot hi* sicken..
sitottion' of the Plaintiff:4l4.'old ihrtr
Whiehpredoced.thls ftlfdttfirMacitots.
„Bel liarstitT ant Defendant reild'ed at Tivettoa.
l'ileiltatiion, terms of intimacy rendli appears', that
at the death of Surgeon. Bridge; who was in the habit

•
---'7.7"77 .7. -1.:7

.-..~-_

•
•
•

• .

.41

37.3

:!


!ma STATE-MOIL -

of attending Mrs. I'. in her accouchement, Defendant
iras called in to perform the duties of necoocheur. The
i3laintift bed ,married- Ms wife et thaw of 26,- in the
}essa6Bll; her mime was Bailey ;. iimiot the age
of 224. therm was, therefore, no disparity in years,
and their circesastancevwere also tuitable. She *as
beeetiful, and presented her hatband with every pro.
spect!of happimesa; that •happittess was uninterrupt. ;
ed, until the Defendant made an inroad upon their
domestic comforts. Mrs. Thomas was the mother 441
(Oar children between' 1.812 and 1815; it was to be
feared, that its 1.816, the Defendant had commenced
the violation of the confidence reposed, in him, and
actually committed the* acts with which be was
charged.
The criminal conversation having been folly proved,
even from the declarations of Mrs. Thomas,
Mr. Justice HULROYD delivered a short charge.
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the
Piaintill— Damages, Two Thousand Pounds.

SURERY ASSIZES.
KINGSTON, Aram 4.
David Owen, aged 50, a stout, mild, good-look-
ing man. wss tried under Lord Ellenhorough's Act,
for stabbing and cutting slnhis Jones, his brother-in-
law. at St. Georgs's, in Southwark, on the 26th of
September last. It was distinctly proved by many
witnesses, that the Prisoner had gone to Mr. Jones's
house, between one and two o'clock, put his foot
on the step at the door, and cut and seriously wound-
ed Jones, and several other persons, with a clasp
knife, as they came to the door. He never spoke
one word while he was acting so outrageously. Ile
had previously said, be would murder the whole
The Prisoner. in his defence, said he knew no-
thing of what ine had done.
Several respectable witnesses gave it as their de-
cided opinion, that the Prisoner had not been in his
senses. Ile had a fever nine years before, and since
then they thought him subject to melancholy and in-
sanity. lie used to walk, to shove his arms back•
wards and forwards, and to speck to himself, like a
madman. His eyes had a wildness in them. Ile
laughed, sang, and danced the night he was com-
mitted to jail. The loss of his wife and of his pro.
petty deranged his mind. Ile frequently exclaimed,
" Lord, Lord !" lie complained of pain in his
stomach. Ile had always been remarkably mild-
tempered, humane, and civil. It was proved that
the Prisoner had a law-suit with John Jones, who
was his hrnther.in.law.
The Jury, after some deliberation, found a ver-
dict of—Guilty.—Auer a pause, their Foreman re-
comtnended hint to mercy, in consideration of the
respectable testimony borne to his character.
'l'ne Judge immediately pronounced sentence of
death, and assured the Prisetier, that he could not
reasonably expect that the recommendation of the
Jury would have any eject. When the Judge was
proceeding to pronounce sentence, two Ladies'
friends of the Prisoner, screamed and fsinted away.
They were carried out of Court. The Prisoner pre-
served the same unchanged look of composure
throughout the nisi, and when sentence was pro-
nounced.
There were tett other indictments, for feloniously
stabbing Margret Jones, the Prisoner's sister, and
Mary Berry, in the same place, and on the same oc-
casion, but they were not prosecuted.
George Mille Morgeson was charged with having
feloniously stahbed Jane Rushforth, at Richmond,
on the 23c1 of September, with intent to kill her.—
The Prisoner is a midshipman. aged 17.
Jails Rushton!, an interesting young lady, said
she lived at Richmond in September last. On the
23.1, about half-past six, the Prisoner came to her
lodging. Itt course of conversation he asked her
whether a murdered person went to Heaven. She
said it was a curious question, but she thought it more
likely that the murdered person should go to Heaven
than the murderer. To divert his attention from
such a topie, she said she felt unwell ; she had had a
bad night's rest. Ile said he would ensure her a
good night's rest. He afterwards supped with her.
After supper he asked on which side her heart lay.—
She replied, putting her hand on her left side,
" Here, you little fool." She looked at the watch,
which hung over the mantle-piece, and observing it
was ten minutes after nine, said, 64 COMP George,
my dear, are you not going ?" He rose, and placing
his left hand over her left shoulder, stabbed her with
a dirk or dagger, and ni:h a laugh said, " I have
done it." She rose, and polled the dagger front her
side, then sat doe ii, and fainted away.
Cross-examined.—She did not consider her mar.
riage legal; she went through what she believed to
he a marriage ceremony. It was with a Mr. Prevost,
in a house at P.sses, seven years &co. She believed
he might bea Clergyman who acted. on the occasion.
(The witness showed great reluctance, and requested
to have those questions waved ) She always went by
the name of Prevost since, and signed her name so.—
The.young Gentleman resides at Richmond. There
was no licence for the marriage. She did not know
whether the person who performed the ceremony was
a Clergyman. She signed her maiden name on this
occasion, because she did not consider the marriage
legal. Mr. Prevost, she understood, to be dead
three years last February. He was abroad. They
lived together as man and wife. She bad passed as
his widow since his death.
The cross-essmination was continued. Their con-
versation was on religious topics. She spoke in
friendly terms, as usual. His conversation was the
lame, but entharrassed4 Ile seemed to labour under
a beeviiress of mind. She knew his mother. Be was
:41,4119 to very violent bead-achs. She knew of no
inse`itl' In :the family. She knew him for eight
months ;%vtaiettsly. She was very little injured. She
could hardly eaacriire his laugh. It was wilder than
hitrustmi laugh. She and he have been on amicable
terms *tee. Site felt Consequence from the wound
latterly. In direct exstnistelieu, she said she htsd
heard *ft his head-ache from 1118 mother. He was
foaset of her societwend used to call frequently.
Philip Lugar, a sergeon, observed the wound on
the left Bide: It was a small punctured wound of a
triaitfittbiri she :sorb is the instreasent tarwduced
would Insiat wattle. 'lt did not appear to itay, Wr!"
ceeded kityerftekbeilnteguesentl.: jltlesalbout tb!ei*
fourths' or on inch deep. She was ill more from the

..,

• •

F,

.

•

.4
A
4141;4(:.

tV

1

shack
two
, .
le it
dip. The hemerrlise4 4t,
a
• „lie< , 41,0
The Prosecotaz drew oat tie instrement ? • eh
•
.thought it like a file.
'flee 'Palette?, behttieteste:ii** Ps hit t.• 4
and. Gentlemen•of ikeitry;.itowastaetevy itteittbmm•
to kill Sits. Jane' Pitliimin l'ettiant only to frigitveleT
hei. I loved her se drat -e'srneld lay down goy lifo•
for her ; it was tint•my intention•to tmrtder itot • so
t- g
far from it."
He is a very lively int.lligent looking yoatb;,_,,,,
While the Quonset was opettiog the moo feetherso,,e-
'petition, he laid' his heed an like Aar, and weptelett..
Hewes much slf•cted during the whet,
Mr: Baron W000:in summing up, addle Wiwi*
terial for their consideration, whetheeitilicrdhotonpil
really meant to ftighren her. lifitiwairootaila
.cloudy done, he was ont Geiity. •
He was discharged instantly. Heboied respite"
fully and retired,
MIDDLES EXSIeSS lONS, .4pftiz. 4.

John Diggory, a discharged seaman, was Indicted
for an assault on Pt cebe Johnson, a child under ten
years of age, with intent to violate her person.--
From the testimony of the child, it appeared, that
the Ptisoner, who lodged in her mother's house,
took the opportunity of her mother's absence, when
only herself and her sister, who was a year oldie
than herself, were in the borne, to attempt carrying
his purpose into effect. The attempt was attended
with many aggravated circumstances.
The Jury found him Guilty, and the Court sen.
tenced him to twelve months' imprisonment is the
New Prison.
IMPROPER nitivisa.
Thomas Charey was indicted for a nthdemesnoar,
in having, on the sth of July last, improperly sad
maliciously driven againit the carriage of Sir John
Leach, the Vice-Chancellor, in the Haymarket, by
which the Vice-Chancellor's carriage was overturned-
and broken, end the footman seriously injured.
Thomas Illingwnrth was servant in Sir John
Leach, on the bth of July last, on which "odes.
the witness was attending behind his master's cat.' •
riage to the Opera-house. When going down the,
llaymatket, Lord Cahir's carrier, which was driven)
by the Defendant, was behind Sir John Leach's
carriage. There was * line of carriages, and just at
Sir John's carriage arrived within three of the Opera.
house door, the Defendant turned out of the line to en.
deavour to get up to the door first ' • in doing this, the
wheel of Lord Cahir's carriage locked into that of Sir
John, and Sir John's carriage was thrown ever. The
carriage was sery much injured; the witness was
throe u down between the wheels of the two car-
riages, and his head pressed in so dreadful a manner,
that he hail been blind for sit weeks. Before
Sir John's csrtiage went over, witness observed De.
fendant look back ; he could at that time have pre.
vented the mischief, bat instead of doing so, seeing
Sir John's carriage pertly over, he whipped his horses,
and completed the mischief he hail previously began.
—After the accident, witness went amongst thecae-
tiages, to endeavour to discover the Defendant; he
slid so, and then, on endeavouring to get at him,
the Defendant 'murk him several times with his
whip, and entleavoeted to put him again under the
surrounding carriages. Sir Jnhn was in the carriage
at the time, but fortunately escaped'unhurt.
The coachman was examined, and his evidence

went to corroborate the testimony of the footman.
Mr. BAttbY addressed the Jury for the Defendant,

and contended, that this accident arose from"' con-
test between the two coachmen who should get to the
Opera-house door first, which contest was com•
menced by the Vice-Chancellor's coachman, and
called the footman of Lord Cahir to prove the fact.
The witness stated, that loud Cshir'a carriage
overtook Sir John's in Piccadilly, and would there
have passed. had not Sir John's coachman crossed
him se,eral times in an unfair manner; and on their
arrival near the Opera-house, Sir John's coachman
said to the Defendant, " What, old fellow, you
could not pass us." The accident et the Opera.
house door was occasioned by Sir John's coachmen
'improperly hacking upon Lord Cables carriage.
The Chairman summed npi sad the Jury found
Defendant Guilty.
The Court sentenced him to three months' impti•
sonment in the House of Correction.
CHILD DROPPING.
Mary Turner and Rlizabetls Byrne, were indicted
for having, on the Bth of March last, inhumanly t:•
posed a male infant, of the age of nine months, the
illegitimate infant of Turner, in the open air, to the
inclemency of the wee.her, in Jolotes-court, Church•
street, St. George's in the East.
Mr. WALIPORD mated the case to the Jury: the
_ _

C~`

prosecution was carried on by the Parish (Mier!.
Turner put In a written piper, in which she stated
that Byrne was wholly innocent and ignorant of the
transaction, and farther stating, that Mary Mecca
was perjured; that she was the person to whom tbs,
child was delivered, and who dropped it.
Macula' was called back, and strongly denied the
charge; adding to her former tettimeny, that Mary
Turner wanted to persuade her to give the witnesses
some opium in gin and bitters, to seed them to sleep,
and prevent them appearing against her.
The Chairman left the case to the Jary, who fouod
both the Defendants Guilty.
The Court sentenced the Prisoners to two menthe
imprisonment in the House of Correction.
OLD BAILEY, APR.,II.

The following Pr;•-nners were capitally tonvieted r•••• , *,
tieorge Clay to alias t;lazton, for uttering. as true, a forgo •
11. Bank-note, with intent to defiaud the Goverour and Cute..
pany of the Bank of Ungland.
Thos. Smith, fur -aniline a hide of leather, value 51. of Mean.
Pitcher, in their dwelling-house.
Allen Grer,ory, for stealing 151. in Bank-notes. a bed; rot
other abides. of Janes Wedden. in his divelaug.tr lose.
'llamas Ford. for stealing a silver wa:cb, &c. of John Bare
roadie', in his d elling.house.
Edward Banyan. for stealing a quantity of worsted Oaf, or
hlcsol. Pearson and Preston.
1)1E1).
On the Sd W.
at his house, in Chdriet.ltorto.aquare, Jar.
wife of Mr. W. Tait, of St. Pours Cbtorchlsust, aud dought‘r
of 1)r. John Iltinier.
Oithe 91st of January last. of a nervitta apoplerv: h-atiCh6-
, on by a fright ocistsinned by beingsattacked by a cat: Maroaaw.
' youngest daughter of John Shoothred, Esq. British Ca.:eclat.' ak:
Constantinople, aged nearly 11 year's.
. _ .
4
L. 4 ;eV IN N Printed and PobliAttedln, bit :Lite 40.•.,_ •—1
A.74)31 ts Or rut:, NJ. 1,4 i 4 I..sbury•coult, s

inimii•i•lslimll6iiiilami

I
I

y

_
f I
gi'
tho
it
«I
VT
hr
thl
th,
P€
•
ba
• th
se
tn
a
to
/
rl
111
t I
fi
.•
•
I •