Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association

[1991] HCATrans 309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl41 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

KATHERINE WENTWORTH

Applicant

and

NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION

Respondent

Application for expedition

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

Wentworth 1 1/11/91

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 1991, AT 2.09 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR J.J. GARNSEY, QC:  May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, MS J.V. COOMBES, for the

applicant. (instructed by H.D. Kelly)

MR R.S. HULME, OC:  May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, MR I. NEIL, for the respondent.

(instructed by Michael Rosser & Co)

MR D. COWAN:  May it please the Court, I appear for the

Attorney-General in and for the State of New South

Wales. (instructed by the State Crown Solicitor)

The Attorney-General has previously appeared in the

New South Wales Court of Appeal as amicus curiae

and the role that he will seek to take in this

Court has not been determined and I appear this

afternoon as a matter of courtesy to the Court.

HER HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Cowan. Do I need to make any

order?

MR COWAN:  Not at this stage, no.

MR GARNSEY:  No. I think, Your Honour, we would say the

Attorney-General has no direct interest in the

subject of this application or in the application
for special leave to appeal. For two reasons: one
is the precise issues which do not extend so far as
the matter in which the Attorney-General was
interested in relation to the proceedings before

the Court of Appeal but, secondly, because in

relation to that matter the Attorney-General was

permitted to appear as amicus curiae because there

was at that stage an interest in the

Attorney-General in seeing whether the legal

qualifications for applicants for admission were

satisfied. Since the argument in the Court of

Appeal and the decision of the Court of Appeal, the

legal qualifications of the applicant have been

satisfied and that is no longer an issue in any

proceedings, we would say.

HER HONOUR: Well, what follows from that?
MR GARNSEY:	Just that we will not agree to pay his costs

under any circumstances, if Your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR:  All right. Can he be heard as amicus curiae?

MR GARNSEY: That is a matter for Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: That is all he seeks?

MR GARNSEY:	Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	Do you dispute that, that that is possible?

Wentworth 2 1/11/91

MR GARNSEY:  No, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: All right, very well.

MR GARNSEY:	Your Honour, this is an application for expedition of an application for leave to appeal.
The summons - - -

HER HONOUR: Is that the only application?

MR GARNSEY:  The summons seeks orders for abridgement of

time for service of this application and for - - -

HER HONOUR:	A stay.
MR GARNSEY:	- - - a stay, and that the application for

special leave to appeal be expedited. The

application for a stay would not appear to be appropriate in the light of the nature of the orders made by the Court of Appeal.

HER HONOUR: Well, that is not pressed, I take it?

MR GARNSEY:  That is not pressed. The summons was dated

30 October 1991 and the application for leave to

appeal was - - -

HER HONOUR: Well, perhaps at this stage I should ask

Mr Hulme: is there any problem about the

abridgement of time?

MR HULME:	Not at all, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	And I take it is the same for you, Mr Cowan?

MR COWAN: Certainly, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Well, we will just deal simply with the

expedition question.

MR GARNSEY: If Your Honour pleases. Your Honour, the

application for special leave to appeal is also

dated 30 October 1991 and the summons is numbered

in the proceedings, being the application for

special leave.

There are two affidavits we would seek to rely

on in support of the application; one of

Katherine Wentworth of 30 October 1991 - that is

the principal affidavit relied upon in this application - and we also seek to refer, if

appropriate, to the affidavit in support of the

application for special leave which is an affidavit

of Mr Russo sworn 30 October 1991.

Would Your Honour wish me to read the

affidavits?

Wentworth	1/11/91
HER HONOUR: Well, I have read them, Mr Garnsey. The

problem seems to me to be this: the matter could

not be dealt with, could it, in the ordinary course

by February?

MR GARNSEY:  Your Honour informs me of that.

HER HONOUR: Well, that seems to me to be the problem.

MR GARNSEY:  Your Honour, the reasons for expedition are

based on the desire of the applicant to

commence

HER HONOUR:	- - - join the readers' course in February.
MR GARNSEY:	Yes, in February.

HER HONOUR: This Court cannot admit her to the Bar, can it?

MR GARNSEY:  No, Your Honour. I am sorry, what does not

appear, I think, from the affidavit is that the

matter in the supreme court has been remitted to a

single judge, Mr Justice Campbell, and is listed

for mention to obtain a date for hearing on

6 November. It is expected that a prompt date for

hearing will be obtained to enable the supreme court to dispose of the matter this year. The

importance of the matter to be determined on appeal

is the proper constitution of the proceedings.

HER HONOUR:  But that is an interlocutory matter in one

sense. It does not determine absolutely admission

to the Bar.

MR GARNSEY:  No, Your Honour. In so far as it maintains the

submitted to the Court of Appeal that, under the Legal Profession Act 1987, the Bar Association was not properly a party and that the court-had no power to permit the Bar Association to

Bar Association as a party, it is a final order. applicant

be a party.

HER HONOUR:  But you also acceded, did you not, to the

proposition that the Bar Council was entitled to be

heard?

MR GARNSEY:  Yes, under section 51 of the Act. I did not

quite, with respect, accede to all that His Honour

Mr Justice Mahoney said I did. An examination of

the transcript, with respect, will bear that out.

HER HONOUR: Well, there must be a hearing before

Ms Wentworth - I am sorry, that does not follow

either.

MR GARNSEY:  No.

Wentworth 4 1/11/91

HER HONOUR:  If the Bar Council wishes, it can be heard in opposition to Ms Wentworth's admissions to the Bar?

MR GARNSEY:  Yes. We submit that it is not entitled to call

evidence.

HER HONOUR:  To call evidence. Is it entitled to

cross-examine?

MR GARNSEY:  The words of section 51 of the Legal Profession Act are "appear and be heard". We say, no, if

Your Honour pleases. We say - and this may be a

reason for the Attorney-General being heard - that

the structure of the Act obliges an applicant to

put before the Admission Board what ought to be put
before it. If that is inadequate, then it is for

the Attorney-General to intervene to say that

requirements of the Act have not been complied

with.

There has never been a case that we have been

able to find of the nature of this present one:
that is, where there is an applicant for admission
with no convictions and who has not previously been

struck off for committing an ethical offence, whose

admissions has been contested. I leave aside the

case of enemy aliens or failure to pass exams.

HER HONOUR:  I thought they did it with women, once or

twice.

MR GARNSEY:	Yes.
HER HONOUR:	I think there have been two cases, have there

not?

MR GARNSEY: That must have been a long time ago, if

Your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR: Well, Miss Bacon, I think, was -

MR GARNSEY:  No, if Your Honour pleases, Miss Bacon had

convictions.

HER HONOUR:	I see.
MR GARNSEY:	And also a specific matter was investigated,

that is, whether she had lied in respect of a bail

matter. No, I was taking into account Miss Bacon's

case, if Your Honour pleases, in what I said to

Your Honour. All the matter considered in

Miss Bacon's case arose because of material -

HER HONOUR: All right, we should not go into this, it does

not matter.

Wentworth	1/11/91
MR GARNSEY:	No - that Miss Bacon herself laid before the

Court though, if Your Honour pleases, and that

included details of her conviction and other

matters. I am unaware of the other case.

HER HONOUR:	No, well, I mean it is, I suppose, purely coincidental.
MR GARNSEY:	Yes. But, if Your Honour pleases, the

importance of the matter for the hearing of this
application is that we say it should be heard on a

proper basis with the properly constituted

parties - proceedings, and that if the applicant is

correct in her submissions that the Bar Association

is not entitled to be a party, then it is extremely

unlikely that any matter in opposition to her

admission will be proceeded with.

HER HONOUR:  Except that the Bar Council may appear and you

tend to suggest that the Attorney-General may be

heard.

MR GARNSEY:  Yes, Your Honour. But the particulars of the

case presented against the plaintiff does not

extend to convictions nor could it logically extend

to ethical offences or offences for breach of

ethics. We say it is a case that is completely

speculative and that should be taken into account,
with respect, in determining whether the suit is

properly constituted.

HER HONOUR:  That does not seem to me to be the problem at

all. If the Bar Council may appear and the

Attorney-General may appear, even assuming you were

entirely successful, how could this matter be

finalized by February? That seems to me to be the

problem.

MR GARNSEY:  Because we say it would proceed on the basis

that the Bar Council would not be able to adduce

any evidence and the Attorney-General, we say,

would not be able to produce evidence of

convictions or any other relevant matter, so that

the hearing would be very short.

HER HONOUR: When? When would it be? When would this short

hearing take place?

MR GARNSEY:  Your Honour, we understand that

Mr Justice Campbell does not have any matters

listed before His Honour between now and the end of

the year.

HER HONOUR: All right, but how could this matter be dealt

with in this Court before now and the end of the

year? That is the problem.

Wentworth 6 1/11/91

MR GARNSEY: Well, that is what I was afraid Your Honour was

putting to me earlier. Your Honour, I do not know.

I am asking Your Honour, if Your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR: Well, there are two special leave days. If one

were to assume for the moment that you were to be

heard in November - we will make that assumption -

it would still be impossible for you to be in the

December list because the list is full, as I

understand it. That is the problem. So, the

matter could not be dealt with in this Court in

time for an admission to take place for the

readers' course to happen or to be undertaken in

February. That seems to me to be the difficulty.

MR GARNSEY: All I can put to Your Honour is that perhaps -

I hope it is not an impertinent submission - the matter could be dealt with as expeditiously in

relation to an appeal as on an application for

special leave.

HER HONOUR:	I do not follow that.
MR GARNSEY:	Your Honour, the extent to which it would be

necessary to go into the material on an application

for special leave - it is not a factual matter, it

is a matter of construction of the statutes - I

would respectfully submit would not take

significantly less time than determination of the

whole appeal.

HER HONOUR: Again, I do not follow that, I am sorry.

MR GARNSEY:  We would ask Your Honour to deal with it on the

application for leave - deal with the appeal on the

application for leave if leave be granted.

HER HONOUR:  But that could not happen. It could not happen

in the ordinary course, could it? The Court is

sitting in two divisions, I think, both in November

and in December on the special leave days. The

Court is sitting in two divisions.	It could not
happen.

MR GARNSEY:  Then I do not think I can say any more, if

Your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR: All right. I am sorry, I do not wish to

intimidate you in that way.	Is there some way it
can be dealt with?	I simply do not see it.

MR GARNSEY:  No, I can only throw myself at the mercy of the

Court and ask the Court on the appeal to constitute

itself not in accordance with its present practice,

in a smaller number, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:	You want every rule to be waived?
Wentworth	1/11/91
MR GARNSEY:	Almost every rule, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Let us assume, for the moment, that every rule

were, you have still got to go back to the supreme

court.

MR GARNSEY:	Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	And I cannot waive every rule, can I?
MR GARNSEY:	No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	Do you know of any case in recent times in

which a bench constituted for the purposes of

special leave has proceeded to deal with the matter

as an appeal?

MR GARNSEY:	I am told of a case in 1981, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	Yes, in recent times?
MR GARNSEY:	Your Honour's "recent times" are after 1981?
HER HONOUR:	Yes.
MR GARNSEY:	No, Your Honour, I do not.  I am leaving aside

criminal matters in which I understand the practice

for the constitution of the Court has varied a

little. In civil matters, no, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. I certainly know of no case raising

issues of this kind that have been dealt with by a

Court of three in recent times.

MR GARNSEY:  Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, the only other

matter I can put to Your Honour is in relation to
the public importance of the matter in having this

matter determined expeditiously.

HER HONOUR: Well, all matters which are granted special

leave are matters of public importance, Mr Garnsey.

MR GARNSEY:	Yes, Your Honour, but -
HER HONOUR:	And whether or not there are degrees is not

necessarily a matter that can be determined in

cases such as this.

MR GARNSEY:  No, Your Honour. The only matter I could put

to Your Honour in relation to that is that the

criteria for admission to the profession is one of the basic matters to safeguard the independence of the profession and so we - - -

HER HONOUR:  Which all suggests that the appeal could not be

dealt with, if leave were granted, on an

application for special leave.

Wentworth 1/ 11/91

MR GARNSEY:  Yes. Your Honour, all I can say is, with

respect, that on this side of the bar table we have

as much confidence in three members of the Court as

in seven or, indeed, in any intermediate number.

HER HONOUR:	Yes.
MR GARNSEY:	May it please the Court, I cannot say any more.
HER HONOUR:	Yes, thank you.  Mr Hulme?
MR HULME:	Your Honour, we take the view that whether

expedition should be granted is primarily a matter

for the Court rather than for the respondent to

such an application.

May I, however, just to assist the Court,

raise a couple of matters? Firstly, Ms Wentworth,

though she says in her affidavit that she is

suffering grave prejudice, as I understand it,

received her final examination results only within

the last week would suggest that no prejudice in

practical terms existed prior to that but

undoubtedly - - -

HER HONOUR:  That being so, she would ordinarily be entitled

to admission and to enter the readers' course in

February.

MR HULME:  Admission between now and the end of the year and

entry in February, I accept that, Your Honour.	I
merely wish to put the degree of hardship in

context. It really operates from now until she is

admitted, if that is the situation, rather than

having existed in the past.

The next matter to which I would address the

Court is that obviously the question of whether the

Bar Association is entitled to appear in

applications for admission in the supreme court is

a matter of substantial importance so far as the

practice of the Bar in New South Wales is concerned

and it is a matter which we would suggest was more

appropriate for a Full Bench of the High Court, if

it reaches the High Court, rather than just, if I

could use the term, an "ad hoc bench" that is

sitting in the special leave application.

Success in the application for special leave

and in the appeal would, in practical - - -

HER HONOUR: If leave is granted.

MR HULME:  If leave was granted - would avail Ms Wentworth

nothing unless she were also to succeed on the

other application, namely, to the effect that the

Bar Council is not entitled and nor is anyone else

Wentworth 1/11/91

to adduce evidence to the supreme court on an

application for admission. As I indicated to the

supreme court, I have instructions to seek leave to

appeal - to seek to have the Bar Council

substituted in the event that the Bar Association

is not held a proper party and, with respect, it is

in the highest degree unlikely that Parliament

intended, by its passing of this Act, to leave a

situation where there was no one who could adduce

evidence in support of an application by someone

for admission to the Bar. Even if that unlikely

situation were availed at in a circumstance where

the Court was aware that there was some opposition

but no one was allowed to adduce evidence, one

would expect it would be very difficult for

Ms Wentworth to satisfy the supreme court, as she must do, that she was of good fame and character

where, effectively, there could be no investigation

of that topic.

I think, finally, the only other matter I want

to raise is this:  my learned friend, Mr Garnsey,

did say that there were no criminal convictions

involved in the Bar Council's opposition to

Ms Wentworth and that it really was an

investigation into her disposition. In the
particulars which have been supplied, there is an

allegation that Ms Wentworth made statements to the

Court which were false to her knowledge and other

statements to the Court which were made recklessly,

not caring whether they were true or false.

HER HONOUR:  It is a different issue, is it not?

MR HULME:  That goes to the issues. I merely wish to

correct the record as it was put by my learned

friend to the Court.

I am sorry, I said that was final. There is

one other matter. The estimate which we have given

to the supreme court of the time which this would

take as presently constituted is that it would take

something of the order of 2 weeks. Now, obviously, there is time if the supreme court expedites it for

that to be heard -

HER HONOUR: Is it listed?

MR HULME: It is not listed, Your Honour. It was granted

expedition in the Court of Appeal and listed for
18 November. When the Court of Appeal disqualified

themselves and remitted the matter to the common

law division, there were no orders made as to how

it should proceed. Subsequently, it has been

listed for mention before Mr Justice Campbell for

next Wednesday. Now, whether His Honour will take

the view that because of the order for expedition

Wentworth 10 1/11/91

which was made, presumably, in the context of the

relative importance of this matter and other

matters in the Court of Appeal - will take the view

that it is more urgent than other matters in the

common law list, Your Honour could assess as well

as I. But that is the situation. It presently has

no hearing date. There are objections to the basis

upon which we put the case by way of objections to

particulars. If they have to be resolved before

the hearing, that will tend to further delay

things. At this stage, no evidence has been put on

by Ms Wentworth in the hearing dealing with the

matters that we have directed attention to by way of particulars and, to some degree, so far by way

of evidence.

So that even if this Court granted expedition

of the special leave application, even if it
granted special leave and even if it heard the

special leave application, there would seem to be

some considerable doubt whether it could be

determined by the supreme court between now and the

end of the year. But Your Honour could assess the

possibilities or probabilities in that regard as

well as I. Unless there is any other matter that

the Court thinks I can assist with, that is all we

wish to say.

HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you, Mr Hulme. Mr Cowan?

MR COWAN:  Your Honour, I do not wish to say anything in

relation to the substantive application, but might
I simply say in relation to one matter that was raised by my learned friend, Mr Garnsey, which was

the interests that the Attorney-General had in

these proceedings, !,lest it be relevant at some

later stage, do not accept that the Attorney's

interests are as described by Mr Garnsey.

HER HONOUR:	Yes, thank you. Anything in reply, Mr Garnsey?
MR GARNSEY:	Only this, Your Honour.  Mr Hulme said that

even if the Bar Association were not appearing

there would still be the problem in the applicant

satisfying the supreme court as to good fame and

character. There is no problem. The relevant

statutory declarations or affidavits of members of the Bar have been filed, including one from senior counsel.

HER HONOUR:  But for some reason that I do not quite

understand, perhaps it does not matter, the

application for admission - has it been made in the

usual way?

MR GARNSEY:  I can tell Your Honour. The applicant applied

for relief from failing to satisfy the examiners in

Wentworth 11 1/11/91

respect of one exam. When that application was

before the Admissions Board the Bar Council wrote a

letter saying it proposed to oppose her admission

on the grounds that she was not of good fame and

character. The applicant brought proceedings in

the supreme court, moving the supreme court to

admit her.

HER HONOUR:	Is that the usual course that is taken?
MR GARNSEY:	I think that is what Miss Bacon did, as I

understand it, Your Honour. But it is a

permissible course. The applicant has since passed

the relevant exam so that part of the proceedings

is no longer relevant. The Bar Association has

appeared and opposed the admission on the grounds

that she is not of good fame and character.

HER HONOUR:  When are the admission dates? What is the last

admission date?

MR GARNSEY:  18 December, I think, Your Honour, for the

year.

HER HONOUR: That is the last one for the course?

MR GARNSEY:  I think there would be one in early February,

Your Honour. I have not specifically inquired

about that but there usually is one. I think I

submitted to Your Honour that we understand the

matter has been listed before Mr Justice Campbell

because His Honour is substantially free at present

of listings between now and the end of the year.

HER HONOUR:	There is no reason why he cannot proceed with the matter, is there?
MR GARNSEY:	No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	Not even if the matter is pending in this

Court.

MR GARNSEY: That is so, Your Honour. If Your Honour

pleases.

HER HONOUR:  I must say, Mr Garnsey, I simply cannot see how

this matter could proceed in time to obviate the
hardship which your client claims. That being the
case, I think the application is futile. But none

the less there is no reason why the matter should

not proceed with all expedition.	What is the
situation, Mr Registrar?

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR: In that regard, if the matter

proceeds in the usual fashion and application books

are prepared as quickly as possible, it will just

Wentworth 12 1/11/91

take its place and be expedited without dislodging

another matter.

HER HONOUR:  Is there any difficulty about the application

books?

MR GARNSEY:  No, Your Honour.

MR HULME:  No, Your Honour. We, for our part, do not

particularly insist on application books.	It is a
matter for the Court.	I would not imagine there

was any more material to be included in the

application books other than Your Honour has before

you at the moment.

HER HONOUR:  I think I can do no more than recommend to the

Registrar that all steps be taken, but I do not think anything can be done - I do not think

anything should be done in view of the somewhat
nebulous prospects of the matter being determined

in time to allow for admission, if that be the

outcome, prior to February. But I do think the

parties should take all steps, and there is no

reason, is there, why it should not be in the

December list, is there?

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, both the November and

December lists are full at the moment and it would

mean that a case would have to drop out or this

case would have to be added in to either of those

lists, that is why I mentioned earlier the

application books or any sort of material for

dissemination to the Court. The next available

date, without actually having to dislodge a case,

is the 14 February sitting next year.

MR GARNSEY:  If Your Honour pleases, we shall take all

necessary steps to get all documents filed with the

Court as soon as possible.

MR HULME:  Your Honour, the only reservation perhaps I have

about that is whether it is going to be an utter

waste of costs.

HER HONOUR:	That is not anything that is going to worry your client, is it?
MR HULME:	Your Honour, we have had 12 applications,I think, in this matter already and the costs are mounting
and they will no doubt exceed anything anyone had
in mind originally.  So any unnecessary
applications are matters which we would suggest
should be avoided.

HER HONOUR:  What does that mean? I mean, I do not follow

that at all.

Wentworth 13 1/11/91

MR HULME:  If money is to be spent - if Ms Wentworth cares

to spend it, that is a matter for her, but if we

are required to spend money which is just going to

be wasted, in this Court, because the matter will

come on before the supreme court this year and so

this application is otiose, then that would seem

unfortunate.

HER HONOUR:  The matter will have been otiose if special

leave is refused, I suppose. But if it is granted,

it will not be, will it?

MR HULME:  If, by that time, the supreme court has

determined the application - - -

HER HONOUR:  Has determined to admit Ms Wentworth, well I

dare say if the supreme court has determined to
admit Ms Wentworth, she will not proceed with an

application that might result in a different

consequence.

MR HULME:	Or to reject Ms Wentworth - - -
HER HONOUR:	I would assume if it decided that, then she

would be more determined to pursue this course.

That is only natural.

MR HULME:  She not only has to get over this matter,

Your Honour, she also has to get over the question

of the Bar Council.

HER HONOUR:  That may be, but it is not at all obvious that

it an otiose claim, is it?

MR HULME:  If the matter is to proceed in the supreme court

this year, then we suspect that the costs in this

Court which are incurred between now and February

will be wasted. Now, minds may differ, perhaps,

but that would seem to us, because if there is an

application - - -

HER HONOUR:  Whose costs are they at this stage? Do you

have to prepare the application books, Mr Hulme?

Does your client have to prepare application books?

MR HULME:  The answer to that is no, Your Honour. As I

said, I think, at the outset, if there are costs

which we are involved in - and I would rather doubt

that that was the situation, though I must confess

I do not know to what extent we are required to

join in the preparation of application books if at

all, I know we are in the case of appeal books at

times - - -

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:  No, that cost is borne alone by the

applicant.

Wentworth 14 1/11/91

MR HULME:  Then perhaps I will say nothing further.

HER HONOUR:  Thank you. I think I can do no more,

Mr Garnsey, than direct the parties to co-operate

in all respects in the preparation of application

books so that the matter is dealt with as

expeditiously as the parties can ensure and if any matter should drop out of the November or December

lists - in Sydney, I think I have to say - that

this matter, if the application books have then

been prepared, should take it place. But I would

not be prepared to dislodge anything that is
already in the list. Otherwise, it would take its

turn in February, would it?

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:	Approximately in February, yes.
HER HONOUR:	There is no reason at this stage why it should

not?

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:  No, there is no reason why it should

not.

HER HONOUR: Costs, costs of the application, that would

seem reasonable?

MR GARNSEY:	I would submit that, if Your Honour pleases.
MR HULME:	I do not dissent from that, Your Honour.
MR GARNSEY:	I take it the Attorney-General has not got

anything else to say on this matter?

MR COWAN:	No, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	I can just urge the parties to get the books in

as early as possible and if a position does become

available, this case will take its place, but

otherwise presumably February.

MR GARNSEY: If Your Honour pleases.

AT 2.45 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Wentworth 15 1/11/91