Consider the following table.

Table:
|   year | rr class   | rr nos       | builder                | builder nos   | gwr / br nos   |
|-------:|:-----------|:-------------|:-----------------------|:--------------|:---------------|
|   1910 | a          | 10 - 14      | robert stephenson & co | 3387 - 3391   | 52 - 56        |
|   1910 | a          | 115 - 119    | robert stephenson & co | 3392 - 3396   | 71 - 75        |
|   1911 | a          | 15 , 18 - 22 | hudswell clarke        | 946 - 951     | 57 - 62        |
|   1914 | a1         | 23 - 25      | hudswell clarke        | 1063 - 1065   | 63 - 65        |
|   1916 | a1         | 26 - 27      | hudswell clarke        | 1119 - 1120   | 66 - 67        |
|   1918 | a1         | 28 - 30      | robert stephenson & co | 3660 - 3662   | 68 - 70        |

Table Caption: rhymney railway a class

Is the following statement entailed (=1) or refuted (=0) by the table?

Statement: the rr number of hudsweel clarke before 1914 be 15 and 18 - 22

Answer: 1