Page images

On a

[ocr errors]

having been committed in the fort, but at the place In Queen v. Dee, Irish Ex. Div., Crown ('ases Rewhere the person dies; and that in such a case the served, Dec. 1, 1881 (Ir. L. T. Rep.), the prosecucourts of the latter place have jurisdiction. It is trix, a married woman, in the absence of her husundoubtedly true that the courts of the latter place band, lay down upon a bed when it was dark. The do sometimes have jurisdiction. But we are satis- prisoner came into the room, and lay upon her. fied that when this is so, it is not because the crime Thinking that he was her husband, she said to him: is to be regarded as having been committed there, “You came in very soon," to which he made no rebut because some rule of law, statutory or other-ply. IIe then had sexual connexion with her, wise, expressly confers such jurisdiction. The mod- which she did not resist, until during the act, she ern and more rational view is that the crime is com discovered that he was not her husband. mitted where the unlawful act is done, and that the case stated, held, that the prisoner was guilty of subsequent death, while it may be suflicient to con rape. R. v. Barroir, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 156, overfer jurisdiction, cannot change the locality of the ruled; R. v. Fluttery, 2 Q. B. Div. 410, approved. crime. *

How then can a State court take The judges delivered elaborate opinions, reviewing jurisdiction? Clearly it cannot, unless when a mor all the authorities, i. ls, the British authorities. tal blow or wound is inflicted in a fort, and the per The judges do not seem to have agreecl as to what son struck or wounded dies out of the fort, the constitutes rape, for May, C. J., sail that connexcrime is regarded as committed where the person

ion with a woman while unconscious does not condies; and this, as already stated, is a doctrine which stitute rape, but O'Brien, J., satisl just the reverse, we cannot sustain. It is condemned by the weight and that undoubtedly is the law. 2 Bish. Cr. Law, of modern authority, English as well as American, 1121. On principle, Pales, ('. B., observeil: Conand is opposed to reason. The authorities bearing sent is the act of man, in his character of a rational on the question will be found in Bishop's Criminal and intelligent being, not in that of an animal. It Law, vol. 1, SS 69, 15+; Bishop's Criminal Proceri must therefore proceed from the will--not when ure, ch. 4; Commoniealth v. Jacloon, 101 Mass. 1, such will is acting without the control of reason, as and in the Report of Guiteau's Trial for the Murder i liocy or drunkenness, but from the will sufficiently of President Garfield.” See United Stutes v. Guiteau, enlightened by the intellect to make such consent 1 Mackey, 498; S. C., 47 Am. Rep. 217.

the act of a reasoning being. It is an instance of the application of a principle of widespread appli

cation, which in crimmal law appears under the In Findlay v. Thorn, New York City Court, Janu maxim Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit real, which ary 5, 1885, 27 Daily Reg. 3:3, it was held that an is acted on in cases of vleeds and wills, to the exeanswer may not be rejected because the verification cution of which it is of the essence that the mind is sworn to before a female notary. McAdam, accompany the act, in cases of contracts passing C. J., observed: “The reply interposed to the coun property where intention governs (Jerry v. Green, terclaim contained in the defendant's answer was ñ M. & W. 6:30), and in innumerable other cases. I returned, because the certificate to the jurat is feel that I owe an apology to my hearers in insistsigned Jennic Turner, notary public. The com ing upon so elementary a proposition, but nothing plaint and answer were verified, and unless the re is in my opinion too clementary to encounter a docply contains a legal verification the defendants had trine so al horrent to our best feelings, and so disthe right to return it as an unverified pleading.creditable to any jurisprudence in which it should The defendants place their objection upon the succeed in obtaining a place, as that which more ground that Miss Turner, being a female, is ineligi- than once Wils laid down in England, that il consent ble to public office, and cannot therefore legally produced in an iliot by mere animal instinct, is perform the functions of a notary. Viss Turner was sufficient to deprive an act of the character of rape. appointed by the governor, and the appointment Queen v. Fletcher, 1879, Bell ('.C.33; Qiucin v. Fle telur', was confirmed by the Senate. She has filed her of

1866, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 40. I think it follows that (exficial oatlı, and has received her commission, and is cluding cases in which an outwarıl action apparin possession of the oflice exercising its functions, ently, but not in fact, accompanie, bogy mind, is and her right to the office cannot be questioned ex acted upon by another), any act done by one under cept in a direct proceeding brought by the Attor the bona file belief that it is another act different in ney General in the name of the People, in which the its essence, is not in law his act--and that is the notary may defend her right to the oflice. It can present case. The person by whom the act was to not be determined in the collateral manner in which be performed was part of its ('ssence. The consent the defendants present their objection. When the of the intellect, the only consent known to the law, appointing power can lawfully be exercised upon a was to the act of the husbanıl only (and of this the particular office, the appointee, after qualifying and prisoner was aware). As well put by Jr. Curtis, entering upon the office, becomes an oflìcer de factu, what the woman consented to wits not adultery, but if not de jure, his acts are legal so far as the public marital intercourse. The act was not a crime in is concerned, and his capacity or qualification for law. It would not subject her to il divorce. Were the office cannot be inquired into collaterally. Peoadultery criminally punishable by our lux, she ple r. White, 24 Wend. 520; People v. Lambert, 76 would not be guilty. It is hardly necessary to point N. Y. 220.

out (but to avoid any misapprehension I desirc to

If the ac

do so) that what took place was not a consent in crown said she did not consent to adultery; this fact, voidable by reason of his fraud, but something was the act the accused committed. which never was a consent ad hoc." Lawson, J., cused was not guilty of the crime of rape, which said: “The question is, what must be the nature involves an assault on a woman's chastity and virof the consent ? In my opinion it must be consent | tue, he was guilty of an assault, having done vioto the prisoner having connexion with her, and if lence to her person by even touching her, without either of these elements be wanting, it is not con or against her consent; for before he can be held sent, Thus in Flattery's case, where she consented guilty of an assault, this must be assumed. But at to the performance of a surgical operation, and un the same time, it is said he is not guilty of any asder pretence of performing it the prisoner had con sault on her virtue because she consented to the act nexion with her, it was held clearly that she never of sexual intercourse. In my opinion, this is not consented to the sexual connexion; the case was law. If not guilty of the crime of rape, he was not one of rape. So if she consents to her husband hav- guilty of assault. The accused was guilty of the ing connexion with her, and the act is done, not by felonious assault on this woman, just as much as a her husband but by another man personating the man, coming behind another and stunning him with husband, there is no consent to the prisoner having blow, before he was aware even of his presence, connexion with her, and it is rape. The general would be guilty of an assault causing actual bodily principles of the law as to the consent apply to harm." Bishop lays it down that the act of the this (itse.

To constitute consent there must be the prisoner in question is not rape, citing many aufree exercise of the will of a conscious agent, and thorities. 2 Cr. Law, § 1122. Wharton lays down therefore if the connexion be with an idiot incapa- the contrary. 1 Cr. Law, $ 561. A recent holding ble of giving consent, or with a woman in a state of like that in Qucen v. Flattery, much relied on in unconsciousness, it is rape. In like manner, if the the principal case, is in Pomeroy v. State, 94 Ind. 96; consent be extorted by duress or threats of violence, S. C., 48 Am. Rep. 146. The question is very much it is not consent. These are the true principles of in doubt upon the authorities, but we think the law which govern the case, and which I have Irish court is right in principle. The woman's conalways heard laid down by the judges in Ireland; sent to intercourse with hier husband is not consent and the cases which contravene this principle I to intercourse with another man, and it is barbarshoull not be disposed to follow, and they have ous and illogical to hold that it is. never been followed in this country.” O'Brien, J., said: “The crime is the invasion of a woman's person without her consent, and I see no real dif TIIE NET DIVORCE LAW IN FRANCE, ference between the act of consent and the act being against hier will, which is the language of the URING the dark and the middle ages, and until

indicement , thougil the distinction is taken by Lora Dthe great social and political cleaching en ont 1950


Campbell, or between the negation of consent and France, like all other Catholic countries, had no laws positive (lissent. Whether the act of consent is bearing upon

divorce. Marriage not being reprocured by the result of overpowering force, or of garded as a civil contract, could not be dissolved fear, or of incapacity, or of natural condition, or of by any temporal power. The pope alone had the deception, it is still want of consent, and the con power, not to decree a divorce, but to declare a marsent must be, not consent to the act, but to the act riage null and void ab initio. of the particular person, not in the abstract but the This, with other beliefs and convictions consecraconcrete, for otherwise the consent in principle ted by religion and time, was swept away by the would be just like the act of handing money in the revolutionary torrent of 1789. dark to a person which was received by another, Marriage, instead of a religious sacrament, was who would nevertheless in that case be guilty of a declared to be a civil contract; and in 1792 the crime.” Murphy, J., said: “Where the will does first divorce law was passed. As might be supnot accompany the act, there is no consent. Every posed in that era of lax morality, every facility was invasion of a man's person or property without con offered by the law for severing the marriage tie. sent or will, is against consent and will. A writ. In addition to all the more or less grave causes recten document is placed before a man, which he ognized by modern jurisprudence in the United reads and understands, and by signing which he States, divorces were granted for incompatibility knows that some right or privilege is passing to of character, and by mutual consent. As the foranother-he consents to sign it. Then turning malities necessary to obtain a divorce by mutual conasidle for a moment, another document is substitu- sent were of the extremest simplicity, and as in the ted for that which he had read-believing it to be case of incompatibility of character, a mere allegathe same, he signs it. Is he bound byy the contents tion by one of the parties was suficient proof upon of that which he has signed ? Ilas he consented to which to basc a decree, divorces became excessively it? Ile certainly has not. This woman consented numerous, and the law was the occasion of scandalto intercourse with her husband. The accused in ous abuses, and a quasi-authorized immorality. duces her to believe he is her husband, and so ol). When Napoleon had succeeded in consolidating tains possession of her person. She never consented his power upon an apparently solid basis, and when to this violation of her virtue-counsel for the the revolutionary elements had been again relegated


to the Faubourgs, and society had become reorgan which may be re-established as in the law of 1803; ized, the necessity for a new divorce law became and the facultative portion of the last clause, giving universally felt.

judges the option whether or not to convert the deOn the 31st of March, 1803, a law on divorce was cree for a separation de corps et de biens into one of promulgated, on the whole moderate and just, the absolute divorce. This will probably be made obdeterminating causes of which were maintained in ligatory. the case of a limited divorce (separation de corps et de The re-establishment of clause 2 as in the text of biens), when in 1816 the divorce law itself was ab the old law is not so absolutely prejudicial to the rogated, and which, with some modifications, has wife as would at first appear. For while under that been re-enacted by the law of the 19th of July, law clause 2 gave her no right to demand a divorce 1884.

for the simple infidelity of her husband, yet it By the law of 1803 divorce was granted for the could be obtained under clause 3 for “grievous infollowing causes:

jury.” Although the granting this was left to the 1st. Adultery of the wife.

discretion of the judge, divorce was usually ac2d. Adultery of the husband, when he introduced corded on the ground that marital infidelity on the a concubine in the conjugal domicil.

part of the husband was a “grievous injury” to the 3d. Condemnation of either party of an infamous wife. crime.

Indeed this 3d clause had a general and saving 4th. Excesses, violence and extreme cruelty and effect, for it was applied in cases where clause 4 was injury.

not effectively, but morally true; as although a 5th. Mutual consent.

wife could not obtain a divorce for a mere misdeThe last ground for a divorce was a concession to

meanor, yet if the misdemeanor evinced moral dethe supporters of the law of 1792, and the more gradation or turpitude it would be considered a radical element of the populace, but it was grievous injury, and a divorce granted on this hampered and restricted by the procedure to be ground. followed, that in practice it was very difficult to ac The facility with which a separation de corps et de complish.

viens, or a limited divorce, may be converted, under The re-establishment of the monarchy necessarily the new clause in the recent divorce law, into an led to the abrogation of the law upon divorce, and absolute divorce on a mere ex parte motion, is not for more than sixty years no serious or lasting ef the radical change it would appear to Americans, fort was made to revive it. Six years ago, how for a limited divorce in France is not a palliative ever, M. Naquet began his active and energetic for an absolute divorce, as in New York and else. propaganda, and in spite of rebuffs, ridicule and the where, granted for causes insufficient to sustain an most strenuous opposition, persistently carried out application for an absolute divorce, but is decreed his purpose, and on the 19th of July, 1884, the new

for identically the same causes. In the law of 1803 divorce law was voted.

it was made co-existent with an absolute divorce, as It is little more than the re-enactment of the di a concession to the conservative and religious elevorce law of 1803, but there are two salient features ment of the people who regarded marriage as an inin the new law, one of which evinces the higher es dissoluble sacrament. teem and respect accorded to women in France in The procedure under t!ıe new divorce law is pur, the present age, and the tendency to constrain men posely complicated and slow; the object being that to the same marital obligations and duties as parties to a divorce suit shall have suflicient leisure women. The second ground upon which divorce and opportunity to reflect upon the gravity of the may be obtained is simply for the adultery of the steps they propose to take and the serious nature of husband, the restriction when he keeps a concubine the bond they wish to dissolve. More than this, in the conjugal domicil being abrogated.

the judicial authority, which in France is much The clause authorizing divorce by mutual con more extended than with us, and has a quasi pateisent is also abolished, and in its stead the following nal or patriarchal character, twice intervenes, and new clause is inserted:

the judge in cumcra, having cited the parties to ap"When the divorce a mensa et a thoro (separation pear in person before him, admonishes and ende corps et de biens) shall have existed for three deavors to reconcile them. Fears, the judgment decreeing such separation may The libel or complaint of the plaintiff, which in be converted into a judgment for an absolute di France is a simple statement, devoid of the technivorce.''

calities inherent to such papers with us, is preThese are the only changes made by the new sented by him in person to the judge, and explained law. It is open to objections in many respects, and discussed. Should the statement appear suffiand it is questionable whether all of its provisions ciently well founded to warrant a divorce suit, and will be sustained. It is not the law projected by should the plaintiff remain obdurate to the perfuncNaquet or voted by the Chambre, but as modified, tory administration of the judge, the latter issues a curtailed and restored by the Conservative Sen citation to the defendant, as well as the plaintiff, to ate.

appear before him in camera. IIere he uses his enThe clauses most condemned are the second, deavors to reconcile the parties, going through the



patriarchal comedy for the second time. Should it in whose favor the divorce has been pronounced, unprove unsuccessful, and the plaintiff persist in his less a specific decree of the court order otherwise purpose, which he very naturally does (not having (C. C. 302). begun his suit for the mere pleasure of being lec The right of the children to maintenance, educatured by the judge), his statement, and the papers tion, and the shure accorded them in the estate of in support thereof, are transmitted by the judge to their father and mother by the Code, subsist and the attorney-general (or district attorney (procu- are unchanged by a divorce pronounced between reur general]) (who is always a party to a di- | their parents. Is to the parties themselves, the vorce suit) and the court, the presiding judge of property relations existing between them may be which, after hearing the attorney-general, either ac modified. Articles 299 and 300, C. C., deprive the cords or refuses to plaintiff the permission to issue a party against whom the divorce has been pro

Ilere then commences the suit proper, nounced of all privileges and advantages (from a the procedure of which may be divided into two pecuniary point of view) which he or she had acphases, the private and the public.

quired by marriage settlements, or gifts made durThe parties, as previously appear before a judge ing the marriage, whereas the party in whose favor in cumeru, but this time accompanied by their re the divorce was pronounced is entitled to all the spective counsel, who state the grounds upon benefits and advantages acquired by marriage which their clients demand or oppose a divorce, settlements or otherwise, even though the stipulamentioning the proofs they possess and the witnesses tion existed that such benefits and advantages they intend to subpoena. Discussions between the should be reciprocal. parties naturaily ensue, and objections are made to

N. MORTON GRINNELL. the proofs offered and the witnesses to be cited; all

PARIS, Dec. 4, 1884. of which, with such further observations as the parties may choose to make, are duly recorded by the clerk and signed by the parties.


LISAFE" (OJTERSTO.N. This ends the proceedings in camera, which still partake of the patriarchal character, so inherent in

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, GENERAL TERJI, FIFTH French jurisprudence, which goes upon the assump

DEPARTMENT, OCTOBER, 1884. tion that the people at large are children, and ought to be treated as such.

ALLEN V. VOSE. The procès-verbal or statement thus signed is April 18, 1876, plaintiff executed and delivered to defendant & submitted to the court, which decides whether or

chattel mortgage upon, among other things, a mare.

mortgage, which was to run until December 1, 1876, connot the petition for a divorce is admissible. Of

tained the usual clause, “that in caso the

shall course in the latter case the suit is dismissed, and

at any time dheem himself unsafe it shall be lawful the only remedy for the plaintill is to appeal against him to take possession,” etc. On July 18, 1876, without the interlocutory judgment.

the consent or authority of the mortgagor, defendant in If however the libel or petition is admissible, the

good faith took possession of said mare, and sold her at

public auction. In an action for conversion, helil. that depublic and regular procedure commences.

fendant was not liable; that said clause vested in him an Ilere the peculiar features incident to French di

absolute discretion, the exercise of which did not der end vorce suits end, and the subsequent procedure is nec upon the fact whether or not he hail reasonable ground essarily similar in its general characteristics to that for deeming himself insecuro. of divorce suits in our own States.

PPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report

A' The judgment however when rendered by the of a refereo in favor of plaintiff. The opinion

states the case. "court does not per se dissolve the marriage. The law requires that the dissolution should be publicly

1), 11. Darrin, for appellant. pronounced by the civil officer (usually the mayor) J. II. I 11. J. Dininny, for respondent. of the domicil of the plaintiff.

HLAIGHT, J. This action was brought to recorer The consequences resulting from a divorce are damages for an alleged conversion of a mare, and for necessarily, on account of the subordinate position damages resulting to her colt by reason of taking her of the wise during marriage and the vested rights from it before it was old enough to wean. The defense

was justification under a chattel mortgage. which children have in their parents' property, more

On the 1st day of April, 1875, the plaintiff entered serious and extensive than in the United States or into a contract in writing with the defendant, in and England.

by tho terms of which ho leased tho defendant's farm, The marital power and authority accorded by the

in the town of Thurston, Steuben county, for the ('ode to the husband is lestroyeci, and the woman

term of one year, to work upon sbares, and in the fall

of the year to sow and put in a quantity of winter resumes her position and rights as a feme sole. Botlı

wheat and rye, and to harrest tho same the next sumparties have the privilege of remarrying, with the mer when the crops should mature. The plaintiff, (xception that the party convicted of adultery can pursuant to the lease, entered into possession of the not marry his or her accomplice, and the restriction farm, and worked the same during the term embraced that a woman cannot marry until ten months shall in the lease. On the 18th day of April

, 1876, the par

ties had an arcounting and settlement of their tranghave elapsed since the judgment of divorce.

actions under the lease, whereby it was found and Shoulil the children issued of the marriage be agreed that the plaintiff was indebter to the defendminors, they are intrusted to the care of the party ant in the sum of $100, to secure which tho plaintiff



executed and delivered to the defendant a chattel ger clause. The defendant, as sheriff, levied upon the mortgage upon all his interest in the winter wbeat property by virtue of an execution issued upon a judg. and rye growiug upov the farm, and also in one sorre! ment against John Farrell. The plaintiff demanded mare, conditioned that the plaintiff would pay the the property of the sheriff, which was refused, and the defendant the sum of $100 and the interest thereon on property was sold on the execution, The question the 1st day of December, 1876. The mortgage con raised upon the appeal in that case was whether or not tained the following clause. “That in case the said at the time of the levy or demand by the plaintiff of Arlon M. Vose shall at any time deem himself unsafe the property the mortgagor had an interest in the it shall be lawful for him to take possession of the property liable to be levied upon and sold on execusaid property, and to sell the same at public or private tion. The court held that where the mortgagor has sale previous to the time above mentioned for the retained no other interest in the property than an payment of said debt, applying the proceeds upon the equity of redemption, such interest is not the subject mortgage after deducting all expenses of sale and of levy and sale, and that there was abundant ground keeping said property.”

for a feeling of insecurity on the part of the mortgaOn the 17th day of July, 1876, the parties entered gee. The sale was forbidden, and the property deinto an agreement, in and by the terms of which the manded; and the jury would have been warranted in plaintiff sold to the defendant his share and interest in finding that the mortgagee felt himself insecure and the wheat then standing upon the defendant's farm unsafe. The question as to whether or not it was necfor the sum of $10, and that amount was indorsed essary for the jury to so find does not appear to have upon the mortgage. On the 18th day of July, 1876, the been raised or discussed. defendant caused the sorrel mare mentioned in the In the case of Hall v. Sumpson the action was for mortgage to be taken from the possession of the plain the conversion of a piano-forte, which was claimed by tiff under and by virtue of the mortgage without his the plaintiff under a chattel mortgage containing the authority or consent, and caused the same to be adver danger clause. The defendant, as sheriff, levied upon tised and sold at public auction. It was for this taking the same under an attachment, and the same was subthat the plaintiff alleges conversion.

sequently gold upon execution in the attachment suit. The referee has held and decided that under the The mortgage covered a large amount of household clause contained in the mortgage, " that in case the furniture, embracing other articles besides the piano), said Arlon M. Vose shall doem himself unsafe it shall At the time the piano was attached the inortgage was be lawful for him to take possession,” etc., the de not due. Subsequently the plaintiff deemed himself feudant must prove and establish to the satisfaction insecure, and took possession of the mortgaged propof the jury or referee chat he deems himself unsafeerty except the piano. At this time he knew the before he is justified in taking possession of the prop- piano had been attached, and his reason for not taking erty, and whether he is actually insecure and unsafe it into his possession with the other property was that does not rest in the mere whim, caprice, or arbitrary it was at a distance of ten miles from his residence, will of the mortgagee, but becomes a question of fact, and he had no convenient place to put it. The court to be heard and determined like other important ques held that the execution of the mortgage vested the tions of fact, and governed by the same rules; that in plaintiff with title subject to be defeated by the subsethis case the evidence did not justify the defendant in quent performance of the condition, that the morideeming himself unsafe, and that consequently he had gage specifically defined the circumstances under which no right to take possession of the mare at the time he the grantee should become entitled to the right of did. This question presents the importaut question possession, and that this evinces the mutual intent of in the case for review.

the parties that util vosted in the mortgageo it The appellant relies upon Iluggans v. Fryer, 1 Lans. should remain in the mortgagor. His possessionary 276; Roy v. Goings, 96 Ill. 361; S. ('., 36 Am. Rep. 131; right way to terminate on the failure to pay the debt Farrell v. Hildreth, 38 Barb. 178; IIall v. Sampson, 35 at the time named, or at such earlier time as might be N. Y, 274.

fixed by the election of the mortgagee, is in good faith In the case of Hugguns v. Fryer the mortgage was he should deem himself insecure; that the mortgaupon a yoke of oxen, and contained the clause that gor's interest terminated when the plaintiff, finding “if the mortgagee deems himself unsafe it shall be his debt insecure, exercised his right under the nortlawful for him to take possession of the property and gage to treat the condition as broken; that his act in sell the same at public or private sale previous to the taking possession of the buk of the property was an time mentioned for the payment of the debt.” In that assertion of his claiming enforcement of the forfeitcase, the mortgagee, deoming himself unsafe, took pos From that time he had the right of possession session of tho property before the mortgage camo due as well as the legal title, and the authority of the sherand sold the same without giving personal notice to

iff ended with the interest of the debtor. the defendant. The question considered upon the Roy v. Goings, supru, was decided in the Supreme appeal was whether or not the sale was illegal and void Court of Illinois. The rule as stated by that court is, for want of personal notice to the defendant. It was that under a clause in a chattel mortgage, that if the held that the sale was valid. It does not appear from mortgagee shall at any time before the debt becomes the case as reported that any evidenco was given upon due feel himself unsafe or insecure, he shall hare the the question as to whether or not the plaintiff was um right to take possession of the mortgaged property, safe when he took possession of the property, and that the mortgagee has the right to determine the crisis question does not appear to have been argued. The for himself, subject only to the limitation that his court, in commenting upon the case,says: “The taking judgment of insecurity must be esercised in good possession of the property, and the advertisement of faith, upon reasonable grounds or probable cause. its sale was in strict conformity with the condition That this rule does not require that there should be that when the mortgageo deemed it unsafe he could actual danger, or that the proof should furnish the sell and apply the proceeds to the payment of tho

court at the time of the trial with reasonable grounds debt."

to decide that there was actual danger. But it will be In the case of Farrell v. Hildreth the action was for sufficient if at the trial it appears that at the time of conversion of a wagon and heifer, which property the the taking of possession there was apparent danger, plaintiff claimed by virtue of a chattel mortgago exe such that a reasonable man might in good faith act cated to him by one John Farrell, containiug the dan upon. That the feeling of iusecurity has reference to


« PreviousContinue »