text:
I. 201. Letter from William Lord Burghley, to the Lord Mayor, by command of Her Majesty, thanking his lordship, the Aldermen, and other governors in the City for the courtesy and entertainment shown to the noblemen of France, the King's Commissioners, which Her Majesty fully appreciated and would keep in her memory, and upon any just occasion reward.
I. 373. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, informing them that John Symcot, merchant of London, stood bound to Her Majesty in the sum of 2,000l. for the bringing over from Barbary of a certain quantity of saltpetre and other commodities necessary for the maintenance of Her Majesty's munition, and that this was the time to carry out his engagement. They understood that he was likely to be called upon for certain sums of money by his creditors, and to have his goods seized, they therefore desired that he should be exempted from molestation for six or eight months from this date.
I. 378. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council in reply. The Court of Aldermen were persuaded that Symcot's suit had been made without reasonable cause, to delay or defraud his creditors. They did not see why he might not serve Her Majesty, according to his bargain, by his factors or otherwise, without fraud to his creditors.
I. 406. Letter from Robert Earl of Leicester to Sir James Harvey, Knight, Lord Mayor. The Lords of the Council had lately written to him and the Sheriffs of London concerning John Simcott, desiring that he should have liberty for himself and his goods for six or eight months, which instruction had been disregarded, and licence had been given to sundry persons to attach his goods; he had lately also been arrested, to the great hindrance of Her Majesty's service. If any stay were made either of Simcott or his goods, there would be great negligence found in the Lord Mayor, and it might peradventure breed great trouble to the ships and the merchants of London.
I. 407. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Earl of Leicester, in reply. The doings of Simcott being suspected to have proceeded from fraud, he had written to the Council thereon, and requested further instructions. Not receiving any reply, he thought they were satisfied, and having first called Simcott, together with his creditors, before him, and endeavoured to make some arrangement between them, to which he would not consent, he had permitted Mr. Campion to take proceeding against him. He trusted that the Council would take what he had done in good faith.
I. 557. Letter from Sir Christopher Hatton to the Lord Mayor. The Queen had been pleased, for her private recreation, to take the air abroad for the last two or three days, and she intended to return to St. James's on Friday evening next by the same road as before. He thought it expedient to give him notice thereof, in case the citizens should desire the comfort of beholding her royal person.
From the Court at Hampton Court, 27th November, 1583.
I. 558. Letter from the Lord Mayor to Sir Thomas Heneage. When the Duke of Anjou and his train visited London, certain poor men in the City supplied horses for their use by commandment, for which they had not been paid. He requested that their claim might be favourably considered.
I. 558*. Letter from the Lord Mayor to Sir Christopher Hatton, thanking him for his intimation of the return of Her Majesty, and asking his advice as to his attendance with the Aldermen and the Members of the several Companies.
I. 599. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Earl of Essex, forwarding him a small present on behalf of the City for the great assistance he had rendered to the glory of God, the safety of the realm, and the general defence of all Christian estates that professed the Gospel and true religion of Almighty God. (fn. 1) If some offence had been given to him they besought him to wrap it up in this public testimony of their hearty good will.
II. 34. Letter from Lord Hunsdon to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, recommending the employment of Captain Allen Lewis to train and view the arms and weapons kept in private houses of citizens, and to be allowed to receive 6d. a year from each householder for that service.
II. 41. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, bringing to their notice the decay of the piers at Whitby, in Yorkshire, and the distress in trade therefrom, and soliciting contributions from the merchants of the City for their repair.
II. 160. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer. He had removed the Gramies, (fn. 2) and kept them apart without arresting them, according to his directions; they appeared discontented, and desired to have some attendants to wait upon them, and permission for their friends to visit them. He therefore requested further instructions.
II. 180. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, requiring them, in conjunction with the Justices of the Peace for the counties of Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey, to make a return of the names of the knights, gentlemen, and others of good possessions and abilities, who continued to reside within the City and the suburbs, contrary to the express command of Her Majesty to reside upon their estates in the country.
II. 205. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex, enclosing a letter received from the Lords of the Council (No. 180), and directing them to make a return to him of the names of any such persons residing in the suburbs or the county.
II. 215. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, acknowledging the receipt of their letter, enclosing a petition from the upholdsters and others for an allowance for furnishing the Duke Byron (fn. 3) and his train with stuffs, saddles, &c., and requesting them to excuse the City from this service, as they were hardly pressed for payment of the many demands made upon them for the service of the State.
II. 262. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, acknowledging their order to supply 200 carts, with two horses to each, together with the Lord Mayor's barge, for removing His Majesty's effects to Greenwich, and calling their attention to the great inconvenience occasioned to trade by the withdrawal of so many carts from the City. The barge had been some time since borrowed by the Lord Chamberlain to carry the Guards; it was not fitted to carry luggage.
II. 291. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Haddington, enclosing a petition to the King, and praying his mediation for the obtaining of His Majesty's Letters to the French King for present satisfaction of the Money so unjustly detained from him after a sentence obtained for the restitution thereof, and for treating with the French Ambassador thereon; also sending two warrants for Bucks, which had always been granted in her late Majesty's time, and praying that the custom might be continued.
II. 300. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, enclosing a petition from certain Merchants trading to "Biskey," and such as used the trade of making Vardingales, (fn. 4) Boddyes, and Sleeves for Women in and about the City, requesting that the Duty proposed, 6d. in the pound upon Whalebone-fins, might not be enforced.
III. 20. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, stating that the Landgrave of Hesse had sent his son into England, to visit the King and to see the country. It would be well taken that he might return with some such note of welcome and good acceptance from the City as might be afforded to the son of so great a Prince. They, therefore, according to His Majesty's pleasure, prayed his Lordship to invite him and his train, one day before his going away, to dinner at his house, where he might see the manner and fashion of his Lordship's entertainment, as no little part of the state of the City, and such as he would not find in any City elsewhere.
III. 41. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor. The King of Denmark, being at war, had solicited the King by an express ambassador for leave to make levies within this kingdom, and had commissioned Lord Willoughby (fn. 5) and others to raise them upon such terms as might invite men to volunteer into his service. The King had, therefore, directed the Council to write to the Lord Mayor, and to his Majesty's Lieutenants in several counties, requiring them to take notice of his gracious pleasure in the matter, and to give order that whenever Lord Willoughby, or others authorized by the King of Denmark, levied men in the City or its Liberties for the service aforesaid, by sound of drum or otherwise, he should not only have free permission, but should be assisted and furthered in the matter, but so that there should be no press or coercion of any man against his will. If any man, having, voluntarily or by persuasion, engaged himself, should attempt to leave his captain, or run away, all possible means should be taken to apprehend him and commit him to the common gaol, there to receive such punishment as his offence deserved.
III. 64. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, announcing the death of the Prince of Wales. (fn. 6) They had addressed letters to the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex and Surrey for the suppressing of all plays or shows within those counties, and required him to prohibit all plays, shows, bearbaitings, or other such sights within the City and Liberties, until further orders, and to commit offenders to prison.
III. 167. Letter from the Earl of Nottingham to the Lord Mayor, by command of His Majesty, requesting that a pension might be granted to Ottwell Astmore, who had been maimed upon the River Thames in the triumphs (fn. 7) at the marriage of the Lady Elizabeth.
IV. 140. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, requiring him to appoint two or three principal citizens in every ward to take notice what strangers were remaining or dwelling therein, and to cause each of such strangers to set down under what Prince or State he was born, and to what sovereignty he belonged, and to take special care as well of all inmates and lodgers as of the principal householders. The certificate to be returned as soon as possible.
V. 39. Letter from Frederick, Count Palatine, (fn. 8) King of Bohemia, to the Lord Mayor. He had instructed the Baron Achatius de Dona, his Ambassador to the King of Great Britain, to give assurances of his good will, and to represent to the Lord Mayor the state of his affairs in the kingdom of Bohemia and the countries thereupon depending. He prayed that he would hear what the said Baron would more especially deliver by word of mouth, and further his request in respect of the most apparent justice of a cause which concerned the glory of God, the advancement and maintenance of the religion of the Gospel, and the common interest of all Christendom.
V. 58. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the King, enclosing the letter received from the Count Palatine, and intimating that either himself or the Recorder would wait upon His Majesty thereon when convenient.
V. 60. Letter from Mr. Secretary Calvert to the Lord Mayor. The King had received his letter, with the enclosed letter from the Prince Palatine. Understanding that some request had been made to the City for a loan of money, His Majesty had desired him to say that he was a mere stranger to the business, and could say nothing to it until he was satisfied as to the justness of the cause. In the mean time, if the Lord Mayor desired to say anything else to His Majesty, he would shortly draw towards London; or if the matter were urgent, the Lord Mayor or the Recorder might attend His Majesty at Theobalds.
V. 62. Letter from Achatius, Baron de Dona, Ambassador from the King of Bohemia, to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, referring to the letter which they had received from His Majesty, and informing them that he was charged by the King to pray them to grant him the loan of 10,000l. towards the maintenance of the forces they were constrained to entertain for the safety of their persons and the defence of the Crown. He further begged that some speedy resolution might be taken, considering how urgent were His Majesty's occasions, and how much a present relief would advance the business.
V. 65. Letter from Frederick, Count Palatine, King of Bohemia, &c., to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, intimating his satisfaction at the information received from his Ambassador, that the opinion and confidence in them expressed in his former letter had been so fully answered, and praying them to continue their good intention, and to make no scruple now, in this time of alteration and trouble of his affairs, to listen with effect to the request propounded by his Ambassador.
V. 89. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. They had already heard of the invasion of the Palatinate by a foreign enemy; many of the principal towns had been surprised, a great part of the country being in the possession of strangers, and the inhabitants forced to take oath against their natural prince. The King had declared for an auxiliary war for the defence and recovery thereof. The occasion, being so weighty and pressing, had moved His Majesty, by the general advice of his Council, to think of some course for providing treasure for the maintenance of the succours already sent, and for reinforcing them as the occasion of the war should require. Because the present occasion did not permit a supply by other means so readily as was needful, the Council had all concurred to begin with themselves in offering a voluntary gift to His Majesty, assuring themselves (the City being the principal port of this land, and the King's Chamber) that the Lord Mayor and the rest would readily follow their example. If so much alacrity was found in the nobility and others to contribute when the Palatinate was not invaded, and the King had not declared himself, they would do it the more readily and in better proportion now.
V. 92. Letter from Sir Clement Edmonds to the Lord Mayor, reminding him that no answer had been sent to the letter from the Council of the 31st October, last, concerning a contribution for the defence of the Palatinate. They had directed him to call for the City's answer, and to request it might be sent to the Council tomorrow by certain Aldermen, named, when the Council would meet on purpose to receive it.
V. 94. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. They understood some scruples had arisen as to the persons who were intended by their former letters to be called upon to contribute for the defence of the Palatinate. Their meaning was that, besides the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, all those who had fined either for Sheriff or Alderman should assist in that service.
V. 102. Letter from Henry Viscount Mandeville, Lord Treasurer, to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. A difference having arisen between the Grocers and Apothecaries Companies as to the rateable proportion of each of them towards the contribution for the Palatinate, he had heard them; but as they were both Companies of London, to be ruled and guided in all such matters by the Court of Aldermen, he had directed that they should attend the Lord Mayor and such of the Aldermen as were not of the Grocers Company, who should determine the matter. In the event of their not submitting the Privy Council would send for the parties, and give such order as they should see fit.
Note in margin, "Delivered 26th April: the date supposed to be mistaken."
V. 103. Letter from the Lord Treasurer to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. His Majesty, having occasion presently to use a good sum of money for the service of the Palatinate, had directed him to pray them by way of advance to lend him 20,000l., to be paid back with interest out of the first subsidies granted and payable by the City. If they could not suddenly advance the whole sum, they should give credit for the rest to the merchant to be appointed by the Baron de Dona for receiving and transferring the said 20,000l., by bills of exchange, to the Palatinate.
Note in margin, "The answer of this Letter, sent by word of mouth by the Common Serjeant and the City's Remembrancer, was that the City hoped rather to receive part of the moneys lent than to run in further."
V. 118. Petition of the Apothecaries Company of London to the King, reciting that His Majesty had been pleased to divide them from the Grocers and to make them a Company of themselves, and had further required the Court of Aldermen to conform themselves thereto, and to provide that being incorporated they might without impeachment enjoy all grants and privileges conferred upon them by His Majesty. They were constrained to trouble him, touching a most unequal assessment, imposed upon them by the Court of Aldermen towards the contribution money to the Palatinate. After a collection had been made in all the parishes of London towards the contribution, the total not rising to the proportion required, the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen had ordered that 5,000l. should be collected from the Companies of London, each Company paying rateably according to their usual rates for other assessments, which the Companies had accordingly paid. The petitioners had offered to pay according to their rate 25l., as much as they ever paid when they were with the Grocers, which the Court of Aldermen had refused to accept, and had ordered that no apprentice of the Company should be made free of the City until the Company had paid 200l. towards the contribution, which was as much as any Company under the twelve had paid, one only excepted. Most of the Companies had not paid a fourth part, many not a sixth part, some not a tenth part, and some not a twentieth part of the assessment made upon the Apothecaries, which inequalities they left to His Majesty's consideration, and prayed him to write to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, and require them not to exact from them any other proportion to this or any other charge than they paid when they were with the Grocers, the same rates being now paid by them severally as were formerly paid by the two Companies jointly; otherwise they feared that the Grocers would procure them on all occasions to be so overcharged that they could not long subsist, which was the principal scope the Grocers had in view.
V. 119. Order of the King on the foregoing petition, directing it to be shown to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, that they might give order for the admission of the apprentices of the Company to the freedom according to His Majesty's letters, and agreeably to an order made by themselves on the 18th April, 1618, without laying any greater taxation upon the Apothecaries in their ordinary assessments now or hereafter, than they were charged with whilst they were united to the Grocers; and further directing that if the Lord Mayor and Aldermen did not conform, the Lords and others of the Privy Council should call the Master and Wardens of the Grocers Company before them, and set such final order in the matter as they should think meet.
Dated "At the Court at Royston, 10th October, 1621."
VI. 10. Certificate from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to Viscount Mandeville, Lord High Treasurer. Upon the levy of moneys towards the recovery of the Palatinate, they had followed the usual course of rating the Companies of London; and although they found the Apothecaries lately divided into a Company from the Grocers (fn. 9) they rated them as formerly, altogether at 500l., of which the Grocers paid 300l. and allotted the residue for payment by the Apothecaries, upon whose refusal the Court had called both Companies before them and heard them thereon. The Grocers readily assented to submit to such order as the Court might think fit, but the Apothecaries refused, holding the sum of 200l. to be too great a proportion for them; and the money was still unpaid. The Court having gone as far in the business as they lawfully could, and the Apothecaries as they then stood being a divided Company, and not so far bound to obedience by oath as they were before their separation from the Grocers, and the Court being unable by their own authority to compel them, they referred the ordering of the matter to his Lordship.
VI. 34. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, intimating that His Majesty upon very great and important occasions had determined to send Mr. Auditor Phillips as a Commissioner into Ireland, and requesting that during his absence the service upon which he was engaged by the City of London might be performed by his clerks, with the assistance of Mr. Auditor Sawyer.
VI. 67. Letter from the King, under his signet, to the Lord Mayor. It was well known what careful endeavours he had made to obtain restitution of his children's inheritance by such fair and peaceable ways as best stood with his own natural desire to avoid the effusion of Christian blood. Finding all endeavours fruitless, he had been moved by his son-in-law and daughter to lend them the assistance of men, to be impressed in this kingdom and employed in their service under Count Mainsfield, (fn. 10) for the recovery of the Palatinate. He therefore required the Lord Mayor to levy and impress within the City of London 2,000 men for the wars, and to observe the orders to be given them by the Privy Council as to their ordering and disposal.
VI. 68. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor thereon, requiring him to take especial care that the men were of able bodies and years meet for the employment, but not taken out of the Trained Bands; and that they were ready before the last of November to be received at an hour's warning by such officers as the Council should send for the charge and leading of them to the port of Dover. As, on account of the diversity of their habitations, it would be uncertain what conduct—money, which was accustomed to be a halfpenny per mile, would suffice them to the seaside, the Council thought it better to allow them their ordinary pay of 8d. per day, from the time they assembled and were delivered to the captains, &c. As by the Act of Parliament the charges of coats, conduct, armour, and otherwise were to be paid out of the subsidy thereby granted, the Council desired the Lord Mayor to require of the collectors so much as should suffice for the press and conduct of the men to the above port, where coats would be provided for them. They desired that the men should be delivered over to the captains by indenture, giving the number and quality of the persons to be received, a duplicate thereof being sent to the Council.
Whitehall, the last of October, 1624.
VI. 69. Further Letter of the Council to the Lord Mayor thereon nominating the officers to receive the men and conduct them to Dover by the 24th of December, and requesting the Lord Mayor to take care that the men were delivered to the officers by roll, indented, to be subscribed by himself or his deputy—lieutenants on the one part, and the said captains or officers on the other.
VI. 86. Letter from the Earl of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain, to the Lord Mayor. The Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen had been directed by letters from the Earl Marshal to prepare and erect in several places in the City sundry pageants for the fuller and more significant expression of their joy on the King and his Royal Consort's intended entrance through the City. His Majesty having altered his purpose, and directed him to signify so much to the Lord Mayor, he requested him to take notice thereof, and to remove such pageants, which, besides the charge they caused in the City, hindered the passage of coaches or carriages.
VI. 154. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, requiring him to aid and assist Captain Francis Trafford (who was to be employed in the service of the King of Denmark) in taking up and impressing within the City and Liberties eighty idle and vagrant people, if so many could be found, who were unable to give any good account of how they got their living.
VI. 162. Extract from the proceedings of the Court of Aldermen, reciting that a letter from the Privy Council and a copy of a petition presented to them by the Master, Wardens, and Assistants of the Trinity House, had been read, from which it appeared that, upon request of the owners and masters of ships trading to Newcastle for coals to Russia, Greenland, Norway, the Hostland, and Hamburg, the Trinity House had set out a safe and convenient channel (the accustomed one, "the Spitts," having become dangerous), in consideration whereof, and to defray the annual cost of keeping such channel, the owners and masters had voluntarily granted to the Trinity House 6d. per 100 tons burden on their ships brought into the Thames and Medway, and for every fifty chaldrons, Newcastle measure, 6d.; and that the Trinity House prayed for a warrant from the Council, authorizing them to collect the same in the Custom Houses of London and Rochester. As by the Council's letters the Lord Mayor was required to hear such persons as he should think best, and to certify in writing whether he found the said shipowners and masters within the City of London willing to make such grants, the Court of Aldermen directed certain Aldermen named to conduct the inquiry and report thereon.
VI. 175. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council in reply to the letter referred to in No. 162, Vol. VI., stating that the matter had been referred by the Court of Aldermen to a Committee, whose certificate he enclosed.
Dated in margin, 28th April, 1629.
VI. 176. Certificate of the Committee above referred to, stating that having called before them, and conferred with, divers owners and masters of coal ships belonging to the City of London, and also received certificates from the port of Kingston-upon-Hull, and other outports using the channel, they found such masters and owners, both of London and the outports, willing to allow the said 6d. per 100 tons, provided the channel were well buoyed and duly maintained.
Dated the last of April, 1629.
VI. 186. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, concerning the petition of the Trinity House referred to in No. 162, Vol. VI.
VI. 187. Petition of the Master, Wardens, and Assistants of the Trinity House of Deptford, referred to in the above order.
VII. 14. Order of the Privy Council, reciting that the differences between His Majesty's Post (fn. 11) of the Western Stages between London and Plymouth, and Samuel Jude, calling himself the Travelling Post for the dispatch of merchants' affairs between the said places, had been heard before the Council. The complaint of the Post was that, under pretence of carrying private letters only of merchants willing to employ him, he endeavoured not only to appropriate the sole carriage of all merchants' letters and dispatches, but had taken upon him and used the speedy carriage of men and packets on horseback in the nature of a Post. To prevent the Posts from carrying the letters of any merchants willing to employ them, he had caused their bills at London and Plymouth to be pulled down. The Council, finding that Jude's proceedings were contrary to any of their former orders made in his favour, which were not intended to permit him to maintain and keep horses and servants at several stages on the road for the carriage of passengers and the dispatch of business in the nature of a Post, much less to give him power to take up horses by Warrant from the Postmasters or others, ordered that he should be licensed to continue the carriage of letters and dispatches of merchants, &c., willing to employ him, and that His Majesty's Post should also be permitted to do the same, without the pulling down of bills or giving them other interruption.
VII. 20. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor of London, the Mayors of Salisbury, Plymouth, and Exeter, and all other His Majesty's loving subjects, reciting that His Majesty's Posts of the Western Stages, from London to Plymouth, had proposed that, for the better dispatch of the King's service and the common good of others, they would undertake the speedy dispatch of all private letters weekly between London and Plymouth, and the faithful delivery of all letters and dispatch of other business on the road, or within twenty miles of it, if necessary, and to provide post horses for all such as would ride with the letters for single-post pay, from stage to stage, viz., 2d. ob. per mile, without further charge, except 4d. to the guide for return of his horses, which course the Council approved, and entreated the Lord Mayor, &c., and all others, to countenance, encourage, and assist them.
VII. 40. Letter from the King, under his signet, to the Lord Mayor and Common Council announcing the birth, on the 29th instant, at St. James's Palace, of a son. (fn. 12) According to the laudable custom of his Royal progenitors, he had thought fit to make the joyful tidings known to them as to his principal City and Chamber. He had therefore sent his letters by Sir Wm. Segar, (fn. 13) Garter King-at-Arms.
Westminster, 29th May, 1630 (6 Charles I.).
VII. 74. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, requiring a return to be made of the names of all such persons as might stay and reside within the City beyond the time limited by the late Proclamation directing all noblemen, gentlemen, and persons of quality to repair to their country houses, there to reside and keep hospitality according to their several degrees.
VII. 89. Order in Council, reciting that information had been given to them that, contrary to the King's Proclamation of the 20th June, 1632, there were still great numbers of people, especially noblemen and gentlemen of quality, who resorted to the City and suburbs, and also to Westminster and the places adjacent; and directing the Lord Mayor and the Justices of the Peace of Westminster, Surrey, and Middlesex forthwith to return the names of all persons who, since the making of the last certificate, had come to lodge or inhabit, Termers only excepted, in the aforesaid places.
Star Chamber, 29th May, 1633.
VII. 95. Letter from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen to the Lords of the Council, forwarding certificate thereon (in answer to No. 89).
Dated in margin, 8th October, 1633.
VII. 125. Order in Council directing the Lord Mayor, the Justices of the Peace of Westminster, Middlesex, and Surrey, to cause diligent inquiry to be made within their several jurisdictions of all noblemen and gentlemen of quality who had come to lodge and inhabit, out of Term times, in the City and suburbs, and also in the City of Westminster and adjacent places, and particularly in the last vacation, contrary to the Proclamation of the 20th June, 1632, and to report their names to the Board.
VII. 130. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council, forwarding certificate of persons (Termers excepted) who had come to reside within the City and liberties since his last certificate.
Dated in margin, 11th November, 1634.
VII. 135. Order in Council with respect to their order of the 15th October last for a return of the names of all noblemen and gentlemen residing in London and Westminster out of Term times, requiring a more strict and particular return to be made, it appearing that the former one was defective, and that connivance had been used in omitting the names of divers persons.
VII. 140. Further certificate from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council to the same effect as No. 130.
VII. 156. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor. They were daily importuned by pitiful petitions from tradesmen and shopkeepers of London, Westminster, and part of the county of Middlesex that their labours and livelihood were taken from them by the multitude of strangers and foreigners exercising manual trades. They required him to certify the number of strangers, born beyond the seas, who dwelt or carried on any manual trade within his jurisdiction, and their countries, qualities, and professions.
VII. 165. Certificate from the Lord Mayor to the Lords of the Council of the number of strangers born beyond seas dwelling within the City and suburbs.
Dated in margin, 20th December, 1635.
VII. 171. Petition of the Lord Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen, and Chamberlain of the City of London to the King, reciting that, by a late Proclamation, he had prohibited persons from going in the streets of London or Westminster, or the suburbs or liberties, in a coach, unless the owner of such coach should constantly keep four sufficient horses or geldings fit for the King's service; and praying that as the petitioners were aged men in public places as Magistrates of the City, and often required to attend His Majesty's service, they might be permitted to keep horses and coaches as formerly.
Subjoined is a note signed by Secretary Windebank, intimating that the King was pleased to comply with the prayer of the petition, and directing the Attorney-General to take notice thereof, and not to prosecute or inform against them in the Star Chamber or elsewhere.
VIII. 66. Letter from Sir Edward Conway to the Lord Mayor, certifying, by His Majesty's command, that news had arrived from his ambassadors that his marriage with the excellent Lady Mary, (fn. 14) sister to the French King, had been accomplished on Sunday last at Paris, and requesting that joy be expressed thereat by bonfires and all other ways usual.
VIII. 105. Same as No. 74, Vol. VII.
VIII. 112. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, requesting contributions towards the expense of repairing the highway at Broughton Bleane, between Canterbury and Faversham, on the main road between Canterbury and London, which was almost impassable.
VIII. 142. Same as No. 125, Vol. VII.
VIII. 146. Same as No. 135, Vol. VII.
VIII. 176. Letter from the King to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, requesting them to solicit contributions from the citizens towards the erection of an Academy for the education of the young nobility and gentry in the practice of arms and arts.
VIII. 190. Letter from the King to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, complaining that, after nearly a year's delay, his letters requesting contributions for the erection of an Academy had not been answered in effect, and requiring a speedy answer in writing as to what had been done, and what was intended to be done, in the matter.
VIII. 211. Order in Council, directing the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City, and the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex, Surrey, and Westminster, to cause a survey to be forthwith made in their several jurisdictions of the number, names, qualities, and conditions of all strangers inhabiting, lodging, or remaining therein.
VIII. 230. Letter from Sir H. Vane, (fn. 15) addressed "To my very good Lords," intimating that His Majesty had taken notice of a rumour, spread by some factious spirits ill affected to the good of his affairs, that, upon receipt of the Londoners' petition, he had publicly spoken reproachful words against them, and had commanded him to acquaint them how untrue it was; and that, could the authors be found out, he would make them public examples.
VIII. 231. Letter from Thomas (Moreton), Lord Bishop of Durham, to the Lords' Committee for London, giving an account of the ravages committed by the Scots in the countries of the Bishopric, Northumberland, and the Town of (New) Castle.
IX. 1. Letter from the King, Charles the Second, to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council. He had received much satisfaction from the frequent and public manifestations of the affections of the Citizens of London in encouraging and asserting that form of Government under which they had enjoyed as great felicity as any nation in Europe, and discountenancing the imagination of those who desired an arbitrary from of Government, which would only satisfy the pride and ambition of a few ill men, and would introduce the most tyrannical power ever heard of. How much he desired to obtain, without further bloodshed or war, the peace and happiness of his subjects and the restoration of the laws, would be seen from the Declaration forwarded to them by the hands of Viscount Mordaunt (fn. 16) and Sir John Granville, Knight, (fn. 17) to be published for the information of all his subjects. The letter contains a promise to renew the City's charter, and to restore to them all the privileges which they had received from his predecessors.
Dated from Breda, April, 1660.
IX. 2. A copy of the Declaration forwarded to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, given under the King's sign manual, from the Court at Breda, the 14th April, 1660, in the twelfth year of his reign. The document sets forth the King's desire to heal the wounds under which the kingdom had so long suffered, and his wish to regain quiet and peaceful possession of his throne, and to restore law and justice throughout the land, and promises, upon his restoration and that of the peers and people to their just, ancient, and fundamental rights, to grant a free and general pardon under the Great Seal to all who within forty days after the publication of this Declaration should return to their obedience, excepting such persons as should afterwards be excepted by Parliament, and engages that no crime committed against him or his royal father should ever be brought in question against them. It also expresses His Majesty's desire that all discord and differences between parties should be utterly abolished; promises freedom of opinion in matters of religion, and intimates his readiness to consent to an Act of Parliament granting these indulgences. With reference to the titles to estates purchased during the Revolution by officers, soldiers, and others, he would be willing to leave all differences to be settled by Parliament. In conclusion, the King promises to satisfy all arrears due to the officers and soldiers of the army under the command of General Monk, and to receive them into his service.
IX. 9. Letter from Secretary Edward Nicholas, by command of the King, to the Lord Mayor, directing that the oaths of allegiance and supremacy should be taken by all Constables, Headboroughs, Churchwardens, and other officers and inhabitants of age within the City and Liberties, and that proceedings in law should be taken against all who refused.
IX. 15. Letter from the Duke of Albemarle and the principal Secretaries of State to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. For the preservation of the peace of the City, which might be endangered by the resort of a great number of cashiered officers, soldiers, and other disaffected persons, many of them residing within the City and suburbs, the King had commanded them to require the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to cause the keepers of all inns, victualling houses, or hostelries, within twenty-four hours after receiving the order, to return in writing the names of all persons lodging in their houses, and how long they had been there; of the number of horses kept in their several stables, to whom they belonged, &c.
IX. 16. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. Notwithstanding all the Acts and concessions made by His Majesty for the settlement of peace, there were many factious and turbulent persons who still retained rebellious designs. Some of them had lately entered into dangerous plots and conspiracies; had held meetings, and had purchased arms and ammunition. The Council recommended that all suspected persons should be disarmed, and compelled to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as directed by the several Statutes, and that such other security should be taken for their good behaviour as might appear advisable. In case of refusal they should be proceeded against.
IX. 18. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. On account of the late barbarous and bloody rebellious attempts of some wicked persons in the City of London, especial care should be taken to observe their motions and meetings; to disarm, apprehend, secure, and imprison the leading persons who might influence the multitude to disturb the public peace, and any who should refuse to take the oath of allegiance. The Council should be informed of the steps taken to carry into effect this order.
IX. 21. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, referring to the foregoing Letter, and approving of the steps taken in imprisoning many persons under the notion of Quakers. The danger which occasioned their commitment being past, His Majesty had been petitioned to release the multitudes committed to prison. He desired to leave the Lord Mayor free to discharge all such persons as had been secured only upon suspicion, except the ringleaders of faction.
IX. 24. Letter from the King to the Lord Mayor, directing him to call a meeting of the Common Council for Monday, the 11th of March instant, when some of the Lords of the Council would attend with a communication from His Majesty.
IX. 27 Letter from Sir William Morrice, Secretary of State, to the Lord Mayor, Sir Richard Browne, Knight and Baronet, directing that collections should be made in the several churches for the relief of persons wounded, and the widows and orphans of those slain, in the late insurrection of the Fifth Monarchists.
1. This probably refers to his expedition into Normandy and Brittany to the succour of King Henry IV. of France.
2. Some Scotch prisoners of importance. See Aytoun's Lays, 'The Burial of Dundee' 'The Græmes' (the Grahams).
3. Charles de Gontant, Due de Biron, Marshal of France; born, 1562; beheaded in the Bastille, 31st July, 1602. Sent, in September, 1601, as Ambassador from Henry IV. of France to Queen Elizabeth. During his stay he was lodged in Crosby Place, Bishopsgate.
5. Robert Bertie, twelfth Baron, succeeded his father in 1601. Created Earl of Lindsey, November 22nd, 1626; Lord Great Chamberlain, 1626; Governor of Berwick, 1639. Killed at the Battle of Edgehill, October 23rd, 1642.
6. Henry Frederick, eldest son of King James I., by Anne of Denmark, was born at Stirling Castle, February 19th, 1594. At the accession of his father to the English throne he became Duke of Cornwall as heir apparent, and was created Prince of Wales, May 10th, 1610. Died November 6th, 1612; buried at Westminster Abbey, December 7th, in the same year.
7. A copy of the Pageant performed on the occasion, written by John Taylor, the waterpoet, is preserved in the Guildhall Library.
8. The son of Frederick, the fourth Count, who died 1610; married the Princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of King James I., February 14th, 1613; created K.G. December 19th, 1612; elected King of Bohemia, 26th August, 1619; crowned November 4th, 1619; defeated at the Battle of Prague, November 8th, 1620; died at Mentz, November 29th, 1632. The celebrated Prince Rupert was his third son; and the Princess Sophia, his youngest daughter, was the ancestress of the House of Brunswick.
9. By Charter, dated 6th December, 1617.
10. Mansfeld, Ernst, Count von, born in 1585; distinguished himself in the thirty years' war. He took part with the Bohemians against the Emperor Ferdinand, and promoted the election of Frederick, Elector Palatine, as King, 1619; he was several times engaged against Tilly. He subsequently commanded the Elector's force, and was defeated by Count Wallenstein in 1625; died in 1626.
12. Charles, afterwards King Charles II.
13. In 1603 he was sent with the Garter to Christian IV., King of Denmark. Made Garter King-at-Arms, January, 1604. Assisted by the Sheriffs of London, he proclaimed peace between England and Spain, 1604; sent with the Garter to Maurice, Prince of Orange, 1612; Knighted 1616; died December, 1633; buried at Richmond, Surrey. VideNoble's 'History of the College of Arms.' For Treaty of Peace with Spain, see Rymer's 'Foedera,' Vol. XVI., page 585.
14. Henrietta Marin, Queen of Charles I., to whom he was married by proxy at Paris on a theatre erected before the Church of Notre Dame, May 1, 1625. Landing at Dover under the care of the Duke of Buckingham, she was afterwards, on the 14th of June, 1625, re-married to the King at Canterbury.
16. John, second son of John, first Earl of Peterborough; created Viscount Mordaunt, of Avalon, Co. Somerset, July 10th, 1659; died 1675.
17. Granville, Sir John, the eldest son of Sir Bevil, born 1628; he attended Charles II. in his wandering abroad. He was chosen by the King to deliver to both Houses of Parliament His Majesty's letter from Breda; attended the Houses with the letter, and received their thanks, May 2nd, 1660; received their answer with 500l. for his pains, May 4th; despatched to the King with supplies. After the Restoration he was created Baron Granville and Earl of Bath, April 20th, 1661; died 1701.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


By Michael B. Geibel, Esq.
With facts shockingly reminiscent of egregious conduct criticized thirty years ago in Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 688, a court in Massachusetts recently excoriated AIG Claims Services, Inc. for its bad faith handling of a personal injury lawsuit by finding that AIG hired defense counsel to fabricate a version of the accident that did not happen, improperly coached witnesses to support that version, suppressed recorded statements from the same witnesses which contradicted the version offered at trial, and then filed a meritless appeal. See, Odin Anderson v. American International Group, Inc., Superior Court Civil Action No. 2003-01212-B. After a subsequent trial under Massachusetts statutes providing remedies for unfair and deceptive claims settlement practices, the court applied the maximum sanction of double damages.
Of particular interest to counsel having been exposed to a rather common negotiation tactic of AIG, footnote 17 of the Odin decision notes that AIG’s representative at settlement conferences claimed that AIG “internal protocols” required that any cash settlement payment be delayed “by at least 90 days.” Put on the stand, AIG’s executive vice president admitted that AIG had no such internal protocol.
Unlike the Massachusetts statute, the California “Unfair Insurance Practices Act” set forth inInsurance Code § 790 et seq. does not provide for a direct action against an insurer after the decision in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287. However, in Yanting Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364 the Supreme Court held that Moradi-Shalal does not preclude first party UCL actions (“Unfair Competition Law,” Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et. seq.) that are based on grounds independent from section 790.03 of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, even when the insurer’s conduct also violates Insurance Code 790.03.


text:
Whether EPA's decision to disapprove Indiana's im plementation procedure was reasonable and consistent with the 1995 guidance.
The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-16a) is reported at 411 F.3d 726.
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on June 16, 2005. A petition for rehearing was denied on November 22, 2005 (Pet. App. 17a-18a). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on February 21, 2006 (the Tuesday following a holiday). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
1. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend ments of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA), Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), prohibit the discharge of any pollutant into "navigable waters" except in accordance with the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 1362(12)(A). "The Clean Water Act anticipates a partnership between the States and the Federal Gov ernment, animated by a shared objective: 'to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in tegrity of the Nation's waters.'" Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101 (1992) (quoting 33 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1988)). Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "provides States with substantial guid ance in the drafting of water quality standards." Ibid. (citing 40 C.F.R. Pt. 131 (1991)). "If the EPA recom mends changes to the standards and the State fails to comply with that recommendation, the Act authorizes the EPA to promulgate water quality standards for the State." Ibid. (citing 33 U.S.C. 1313(c) (1988)).
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys tem (NPDES) is established by Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342, and "requires dischargers to obtain per mits that place limits on the type and quantity of pollut ants that can be released into the Nation's waters." South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 102 (2004). NPDES permits im pose limits based on available technologies, 33 U.S.C. 1311(b), and any more stringent limits necessary to meet water quality standards, 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C). Long standing NPDES regulations require water quality- based limits whenever a discharge would "cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard." 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(i); see id. § 122.44(d)(1)(iv). "Section 402(b) authorizes each State to establish 'its own permit program for discharges into navigable waters within its jurisdiction.'" Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 102 (quoting 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)).
In 1990, Congress amended Section 118 of the CWA to address the problem of pollutant discharges into the Great Lakes System. 33 U.S.C. 1268 (2000 & Supp. III 2003); see American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979, 989 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("Congress was attempting to create a uniform set of requirements for water pollution in the Great Lakes."). Section 118 directs EPA to "pro vide guidance to the Great Lakes States on minimum water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for the Great Lakes Sys tem," 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(A); see 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(B), and it requires the Great Lakes States to "adopt water quality standards, antidegradation poli cies, and implementation procedures * * * which are consistent with such guidance," 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C). If and to the extent that a Great Lakes State fails to adopt standards, policies, and procedures that are con sistent with the guidance provided by EPA, EPA is di rected to promulgate federal standards, policies, or pro cedures that will then apply to discharges in the rele vant State. See 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. 132.5(f)(2); Pet. App. 3a.
In 1995, following a notice-and-comment procedure, EPA issued the required guidance. Final Water Qual ity Guidance for the Great Lakes System, 60 Fed. Reg. 15,366 (Guidance); see Pet. App. 3a. The Guidance has three basic parts. First, it outlines criteria and method ologies for protecting aquatic life, human health, and wildlife from toxic pollutants. See 40 C.F.R. Pt. 132, Tbls. 1-4, Apps. A-D. Second, it prescribes antide gradation procedures to protect existing high-quality waters within the Great Lakes System. See 40 C.F.R. Pt. 132, App. E. Third, the Guidance establishes re quirements to ensure more consistent implementation of water-quality criteria in regulating individual dis charges of toxic pollutants into the System. See 40 C.F.R. Pt. 132, App. F.
The third part of the Guidance establishes an imple mentation procedure under which an NPDES permit ting authority determines whether a facility's permit requires a discharge limitation to control whole effluent toxicity (WET) to a level that will assure attainment of water quality standards. See Pet. App. 2a. The term "WET" is defined under pre-existing NPDES regula tions as the combined toxic effect of individual chemicals in a discharge measured directly using test organisms in a laboratory. See 40 C.F.R. 122.2; Edison Elec. Inst. v. EPA, 391 F.3d 1267, 1268-1269 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (describ ing test procedures). In general terms, the Guidance's implementation procedure for determining the need for a WET limit (a) starts with the maximum observed tox icity value derived from laboratory testing of a facility's effluent; (b) applies a statistical multiplier to that maxi mum value to account for the likelihood that the facility did not collect samples at the precise moment when the combined toxic effect of the facility's wastestream was at its highest; (c) adjusts downward to reflect any avail able dilution in the receiving water; and (d) compares the resulting value to the amount of toxicity that a healthy water body can sustain (i.e., the applicable WET criteria in the water quality standard). See 40 C.F.R. Pt. 132, App. F, Procedure 6, Sec. D; Pet. App. 3a-4a. If the permitting authority projects that the discharge is likely to have a greater toxic effect on the receiving wa ter of the Great Lakes System than the acceptable level of toxicity identified in the standard, then it may autho rize the discharge only with an NPDES permit that in cludes an effluent limitation for WET.
[t]he scientific, policy and legal basis for EPA's de velopment of each section of the final Guidance * * * is set forth in the preamble, [SID], Technical Support Documents, and other supporting docu ments in the public docket. EPA will follow the guid ance set out in these documents in reviewing State * * * water quality programs in the Great Lakes for consistency with this part.
2. In 2000, after reviewing the standards, policies, and implementation procedures proposed by the State of Indiana and other Great Lakes States, including pub lic notice and opportunity for comment, EPA approved a large majority of the state proposals. See Pet. App. 19a-26a, 34a-40a; 63 Fed. Reg. 10,221 (1998); 64 Fed. Reg. 49,803 (1999); C.A. App. 494-507, 628-633, 650, 657- 659, 679-686, 690-696, 704. EPA disapproved Indiana's proposed WET implementation procedure, however, concluding that it was inconsistent with the Guidance. See Pet. App. 38a-40a. EPA explained that Indiana's proposed procedure, whose application turns on the av erage toxicity of different samples rather than on the maximum observed toxic value, "both lessens the impact of observed toxicity on the calculation and fails to ac count for the reasonable possibility that effluent toxicity may exceed the level observed in the tests because sam pling did not coincide with periods of maximum toxicity." Id. at 39a. EPA further observed that the proposed In diana procedures "often do not require a limit on WET where one would be required under the procedures in the Guidance," and that, "in some cases, Indiana's proce dure would not require imposition of a [permit limit for WET] even where testing has showed actual, observed toxicity." Ibid.; see C.A. App. 658 (Indiana's WET im plementation procedure "require[s] multiple failures" of a toxicity test before the facility's NPDES permit must contain a WET limit).
In the course of its decision, EPA considered and rejected Indiana's contention that EPA's own WET im plementation procedure is scientifically indefensible, and that the State's procedure therefore was not re quired to be consistent with the applicable Guidance provisions. Pet. App. 52a-61a. EPA explained that the scientific-indefensibility exclusion set forth in 40 C.F.R. 132.4(h) is intended "to address pollutants identified in the future for which some of the methodologies or proce dures may not be technically appropriate," Pet. App. 53a, and "is not a vehicle for parties to challenge anew the Guidance itself," id. at 54a. EPA observed in that regard that "[t]he public had a full opportunity to pro vide its views on [EPA's WET procedure] during the rulemaking establishing the Guidance, and the time pe riod for challenging the Guidance has passed." Ibid.; see 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1) (petition for review of EPA action must be filed in the appropriate court of appeals within 120 days after the challenged action).
[T]he procedures submitted by Ohio, Michigan and Indiana do not address in any manner the underlying premise of [EPA's WET procedure]-that effluent quality is variable and, therefore, a method for as sessing WET data must account for the likelihood that the maximum value in a particular data set is less than the true maximum that is likely to be expe rienced by the environment as a result of the dis charge. In evaluating the potential for a discharge to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards, EPA believes it prudent to employ a pro cedure that minimizes the likelihood of misclassify ing a discharge as not needing an effluent limitation, given the potential in such circumstances for unac ceptable adverse impacts on the aquatic resource.
Id. at 54a-55a. That approach, EPA explained, will "al low the permitting authority to make a decision that will protect water quality with a high degree of confidence in the face of uncertainty and with a relatively small data set." Id. at 55a.
By contrast, EPA observed, the WET procedures that Indiana proposed would have "move[d] in the oppo site direction by averaging the observed effluent data." Pet. App. 55a. In EPA's view, the State's proposed WET procedures ignored "the fact that a small number of data sets may not capture the worst case effluent quality," and those procedures would have allowed dis charges to occur even in situations "where available data ha[ve] indicated unacceptable toxicity." Id. at 55a-56a. Therefore, in addition to being inconsistent with the Guidance, EPA concluded that Indiana's proposal would not be "in accordance with applicable national regula tions." Id. at 56a (citing 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)). The effect of EPA's decision was that, given the absence of an approved state alternative, the WET implementation procedures previously set forth in the Guidance apply within Indiana and other Great Lakes States. See id. at 61a.
3. The State of Indiana did not seek judicial review of EPA's decision disapproving the State's proposed WET implementation procedure. However, petitioner Indiana Water Quality Coalition-a coalition of indus trial entities whose effluent discharges are potentially subject to regulation under the CWA-filed a petition for review in the Seventh Circuit. See Pet. App. 5a. That petition was subsequently transferred to the Sixth Circuit and consolidated with a previously filed petition for review raising similar issues with respect to imple mentation procedures proposed by the State of Ohio. See ibid. The court of appeals denied the petitions for review. Id. at 1a-16a.
a. The court of appeals held that the petitions for review were timely, notwithstanding the fact that any petition for review of the Guidance itself was required to be filed within 120 days of the Guidance's promulgation in 1995. Pet. App. 7a. The court found that petitioner challenged only "the reasonableness of the EPA's find ing that the Indiana * * * implementation procedures are inconsistent with the Guidance," and that petitioner did not "contest the legitimacy of the Guidance" itself. Ibid.
EPA acted rationally and on the basis of consider able evidence when it rejected Indiana's regulatory scheme. Given that Indiana's averaging of toxicity will call for fewer WET limits than a system using maximum values, the EPA's conclusion that the state's scheme would be less protective of the envi ronment was far from being arbitrary or capricious.
The court of appeals also rejected petitioner's con tention that the proposed Indiana procedures should be treated as an appropriate alternative because the WET testing procedures described in the Guidance were sci entifically indefensible. Pet. App. 14a-16a. The court explained that EPA's stated purpose for adopting the scientific-indefensibility exclusion was to allow flexibility in addressing discharges of "pollutants identified in the future." Id. at 15a (quoting 58 Fed. Reg. 20,843 (1993)) (emphasis added by court of appeals). The court also observed that the exclusion "was intended to be 'applied to a specific situation,' * * * not to a sweeping alterna tive regulatory scheme." Id. at 16a (quoting SID, C.A. App. 309).
The judgment of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or of any other court of appeals. The court of appeals' decision also raises no legal issue of recurring importance. Fur ther review is not warranted.
1. Petitioner contends (Pet. 12-18) that the court of appeals erred in holding that 40 C.F.R. 132.4(h) is inap plicable to state WET testing procedures. That claim lacks merit.
a. Section 132.4(h) states that, "[f]or any pollutant other than those in Table 5 of this part for which the State * * * demonstrates that a methodology or proce dure in this part is not scientifically defensible, the Great Lakes States * * * shall" apply an alternative procedure that is consistent with all applicable federal laws. On its face, the regulation simply states what op tions are available if a State validly demonstrates that a methodology or procedure set forth in the Guidance is scientifically indefensible. Section 132.4(h) does not discuss how, when, or under what circumstances a show ing of scientific indefensibility may be made. And while petitioner is correct that Section 132.4(h) "contain[s] no language that limits a State's use of the scientific indefensibility provision only to pollutants identified in the future" (Pet. 15), Section 132.4(h) also contains no explicit statement that the exclusion does apply to pol lutants that were identified before the Guidance was issued. There is consequently no basis for petitioner's contention (Pet. 15) that the understanding of Section 132.4(h) reflected in the SID is "contrary to the plain language of the regulation."
b. Additional factors reinforce the reasonableness of EPA's determination that the scientific-indefensibility exclusion is inapplicable here. The Guidance itself ex plains that "[t]he scientific, policy and legal basis for EPA's development of each section of the final Guidance * * * is set forth in" supporting documents that include the SID. 40 C.F.R. 132.1(b). Section 132.1(b) further states that "EPA will follow the guidance set out in these documents in reviewing the State * * * water qual ity programs in the Great Lakes." Ibid.
The text of the pertinent regulations thus expressly identifies the SID as an aid to the understanding and implementation of the Guidance. In addition, the SID was issued contemporaneously with the Guidance it self, and EPA's understanding that the scientific- indefensibility exclusion would be applicable only to subsequently-identified pollutants was clearly reflected in the proposed Guidance previously issued for public comment in 1993.1 Contrary to petitioner's contention (Pet. 17), treating EPA's adherence to that understand ing as permissible in no way suggests that an agency may circumvent notice-and-comment requirements by effectively amending its published regulations under the guise of re-interpretation.
2. In the administrative decision at issue in this case, EPA also explained that, even if the scientific- indefensibility exclusion were potentially applicable to WET testing procedures, Indiana's proposal would be rejected because the State's approach was insufficiently protective of aquatic resources and was not "in accor dance with applicable national regulations." Pet. App. 56a (citing 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)); see id. at 54a-56a. Because a Great Lakes State that seeks to invoke the scientific-indefensibility exclusion must offer "an alter native implementation procedure that is consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and Tribal laws," 40 C.F.R. 132.4(h)(2), EPA's assessment of the shortcomings of Indiana's proposal provides an independent basis for the administrative action that is currently under review. And while the court of appeals' discussion of the scientific-indefensibility exclusion (see Pet. App. 14a- 16a) did not refer to that aspect of EPA's rationale, the court had previously expressed general approval of EPA's scientific analysis. See Pet. App. 9a-11a.3 There is consequently no reason to believe that the court of appeals' judgment denying the petition for review would have been affected if the court had rejected EPA's inter pretation of 40 C.F.R. 132.4(h).
3. For other reasons as well, petitioner's challenge to EPA's interpretation of its own regulation does not warrant this Court's review.
a. In its discussion of the scientific-indefensibility exclusion (Pet. App. 14a-16a), the court of appeals did not announce any general rule defining the circum stances under which documents like the SID may be consulted, or the weight that they should be given, when a court interprets published agency regulations. There is consequently no basis for petitioner's concern (see Pet. 17) that the Sixth Circuit's decision may be cited in future cases as authority for the proposition that infor mal agency guidance can supersede unambiguous regu latory text. Nor is there any basis for petitioner's claim (Pet. 12, 15-16) that the decision below conflicts with decisions in which other courts of appeals have inter preted other agency regulations in accordance with their plain language. The court of appeals did not hold or sug gest that EPA's interpretation is inconsistent with any unambiguous regulatory text, and thus petitioner's claim of a conflict rests on a mistaken premise.
b. The statutory and regulatory provisions that gov ern the disposition of this case are unusual, and the practical significance of the court of appeals' decision is accordingly limited. Section 118 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1268 (2000 & Supp. III 2003), applies only to States sur rounding the Great Lakes. The EPA action at issue here applies by its terms only to activities conducted in Indiana that result in discharges of pollutants to Lake Michigan and its tributaries. See 33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)(C); 40 C.F.R. 132.6(c). The instant case, moreover, is the only one in which a court has reviewed an application of EPA's "final water quality guidance" to a Great Lakes State, see 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(B), and it is unlikely that another such case will arise in the future, since the deadline for Great Lakes States to submit their water quality programs for review by EPA expired long ago, see 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C), and EPA com pleted its review of those programs in 2000. See Pet. App. 19a-65a.
In addition, Section 118's directive that EPA provide "guidance" to state regulators is itself an unusual statu tory mandate. As the court explained in American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the Guidance issued by EPA in 1995 "certainly restricts state flexibility, but it does not immediately impose any requirements. It merely announces the standards by which state submissions will be judged and informs the states of the default rule that the agency will apply if a state submits a nonconforming plan." Id. at 988. Be cause the CWA requirement that EPA provide "guid ance" to Great Lakes States and Tribes is essentially sui generis, this case would not present a suitable vehicle for addressing more general questions concerning fed eral agencies' efforts to clarify published regulations by incorporating contemporaneously issued, but less for mal, explanatory documents.
c. In the decision at issue here, EPA disapproved limited aspects of the Great Lakes program adopted by the State of Indiana. The State did not petition for re view of the EPA decision, nor did it intervene in the Sixth Circuit proceeding. Rather, in both the court of appeals and in this Court, EPA's action with regard to the Indiana proposal has been challenged solely by a coalition of regulated private entities. The State's acqui escence in EPA's decision provides a further reason for concluding that the question presented here does not warrant this Court's review.
1 Petitioner suggests (see Pet. 6, 12, 16) that the public did not receive notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, EPA's current interpretation of the scientific-indefensibility exclusion. That is incor rect. In issuing the proposed Guidance for public comment in 1993, EPA made clear that the exclusion was designed to address situations in which methodologies or procedures set forth in the Guidance proved to be inappropriate for newly discovered pollutants. See Pet. App. 15a- 16a (quoting explanation of the exclusion given in the proposed Guidance, 58 Fed. Reg. 20,843 (1993)).
2 The Guidance itself was previously challenged in court and was upheld in most respects. See American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
the EPA acted rationally and on the basis of considerable evidence when it rejected Indiana's regulatory scheme. Given that Indiana's averaging of toxicity will call for fewer WET limits than a system using maximum values, the EPA's conclusion that the state's scheme would be less protective of the environment was far from being arbitrary or capricious.

matches:
v.
v.
§ 122
v.
v.
v.
sui generis
v.


One of the most fascinating parts of a real estate lawyer's career is negotiating the selling of rights to a rent-regulated tenancy to a landlord. These deals have made tenants into multimillionaires and given landlords the ability to build high-rise buildings. Now, this symbiosis of dreaming dreams and making them come true is under threat by existing case law (discussed in last month’s blog post) and new laws already enacted and politically promised.
Under these threats, there is pressure to reach deals rapidly—both from landlords who seek to free their apartments from regulation and from tenants who wish to cash out the value of their apartments’ potential unregulated value—before possible political action renders the reasons for the deal obsolete.
However, recent changes to the NYC Administrative Code and a recent decision in the Appellate Term, First Department, have created a minefield of requirements and restrictions for landowners who seek to buy out the rights of tenants in occupancy. These new laws and changes to the law cause landowners to proceed with extreme caution or risk not only crippling fines, but also the inability to make any building improvements and surrendering the building to considerably more rigorous regulation, all while the tenant remains in the property.
Repeatedly contacting the tenant on weekends, holidays, outside normal banking hours unless the tenant previously approved outside-work-hour contact in writing, or in an (undefined) abusive or harassing manner [NYC Admin. Code §27-2004(a)(48)(f-4)].
Courts, under the doctrine that every word must be accorded a meaning, are likely to find a distinction between “falsifying” and “misrepresenting.” Perhaps that distinction will be between those things that are demonstrably false—falsifying—and those things that are merely speculative or impossible for the landlord to know if true—misrepresenting. Perhaps, instead, the distinction can be drawn at falsifying being the creation of a forgery and misrepresenting being lying about a situation.
The rules described above apply exclusively to the entire City of New York. They are not part of the suburban counties that enforce the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 or the other statewide counties that have rent control. However, under the city’s Local Law 1 of 2018 (LL1) the fact that these rules are part of the definition of “harassment” carries significance both in rent-regulated housing where there are special penalties for harassment and in seeking and receiving building permits, which throughout the city requires non-harassment in Single Room Occupancy (SRO) buildings and under LL1 in certain specified neighborhoods of the city, any targeted residential multiple dwelling, regardless of whether it is an SRO.
LL1, effective Sept. 27, 2018, occupies some 6,000 new words of the Administrative Code at §27-2093.1. Under it for Bronx Community Districts 4, 5 and 7; Brooklyn Community Districts 3, 4, 5, and 16; Manhattan Community Districts 9, 11, and 12; and Queens District 14 all buildings and selected buildings throughout the city, neither construction nor the issuance of certificates of occupancy can take place until certain further procedures are in place. The lack of a certificate of occupancy in a residential building means the landlord cannot sue for rent.
These further procedures entail employing the now familiar “Certification of No Harassment” (CONH) procedure, previously applicable only to SRO buildings (described at length in Bailey and Treiman, Understanding Single Room Occupancy Laws, NYLJ, Feb. 10, 2016). Under LL1, a finding of “harassment” will deny the CONH and potentially prevent a building from getting building permits, a certificate of occupancy, and collecting rent.
The DOB will issue building permits in targeted buildings if the landlord “cures” the harassment. However, the “cure” is not a cure at all. It is instead a coerced entry into a more restrictive form of regulation. Under the Administrative Code provision, the landlord must enter and record an agreement to provide within the community district housing square footage devoted to low-income housing of at least 25 percent of the target building’s square footage. The rents for such units are set at maxima described in NYCRR HPD Rules §53-12.
The expenses associated with constructing such housing may not, under the program, receive 421-a benefits, but it is clear that the low-income housing provided under this program is intended to be like that of 421-a. There is no provision in the anti-harassment statute for what happens if there is nowhere available where such construction could take place.
As to harassment, regardless of whether it takes place where the pilot program is in effect, Administrative Code §27-2115 imposes fines for harassment at a minimum of $2,000 and a maximum of $10,000. If the court finds there was any harassment under these Administrative Code provisions, it is compelled to impose the $2,000 minimum, without the discretion to waive it completely [ABJ Milano LLC v. Howell, 61 Misc.3d 1037 (Civ. Ct. NY Cty. 2018)]. Since harassment under these provisions is a violation of the NYC Housing Maintenance Code, Civil Court Act §110(a) empowers the NYC Civil Court to enjoin further violations of these provisions.
For the past several years, landlords and tenants have had a shared interest in having the landlord buy the tenant out of the value the tenant is sitting on in the apartment. Navigating the highly restrictive new landmines and curtailments on these negotiations will not only affect the actual agreements but treatment by lenders and government agencies and officials. Landlords and their attorneys must tread carefully.


text:
This excellent chapter is the same with 2 Sa. 7. It will be worth while to look back upon what was there said upon it. Two things in general we have in it:桰. God's gracious acceptance of David's purpose to build him a house, and the promise he made thereupon (v. 1�). II. David's gracious acceptance of God's good promise to build him a house, and the prayer he made thereupon (v. 16�).
I. How desirous and solicitous good people should be to serve the interests of God's kingdom in the world, to the utmost of their capacity. David could not be easy in a house of cedar while the ark was lodged within curtains, v. 1. The concerns of the public should always be near our hearts. What pleasure can we take in our own prosperity if we see not the good of Jerusalem? When David is advanced to wealth and power see what his cares and projects are. Not, "What shall I do for my children to get portions for them? What shall I do to fill my coffers and enlarge my dominions?'' But, "What shall I do for God, to serve and honour him?'' Those that are contriving where to bestow their fruits and their good would do well to enquire what condition the ark is in, and whether some may not be well bestowed upon it.
II. How ready God's prophets should be to encourage every good purpose. Nathan was no sooner aware of David's good design than he bade him go and do all that was within his heart (v. 2), for he had no reason to doubt but that God was with him in it. Ministers should stir up the gifts and graces that are in others as well as in themselves.
III. How little God affects external pomp and splendour in his service. His ark was content with a tabernacle (v. 5) and he never so much as mentioned the building of a house for it; no, not when he had fixed his people in great and goodly cities which they builded not, Deu. 6:10. He commanded the judges to feed his people, but never bade them build him a house, v. 6. We may well be content awhile with mean accommodations; God's ark was so.
IV. How graciously God accepts his people's good purposes, yea, though he himself prevents the performance of them. David must not build this house, v. 4. He must prepare for it, but not do it; as Moses must bring Israel within sight of Canaan, but must them leave it to Joshua to put them in possession of it. It is the prerogative of Christ to be both the author and finisher of his work. Yet David must not think that, because he was not permitted to build the temple, 1. His preferment was in vain; no, "I took thee from the sheep-cote, though not to be a builder of the temple, yet to be ruler over my people Israel; that is honour enough for thee; leave the other to one that shall come after thee,'' v. 7. Why should one man think to engross all the business and to bring every good work to perfection? Let something be left for those that succeed. God had given him victories, and made him a name (v. 8), and, further, intended by him to establish his people Israel and secure them against their enemies, v. 9. That must be his work, who is a man of war and fit for it, and he must let the building of churches be left to one that was never cut out for a soldier. Nor, 2. Must he think that his good purpose was in vain, and that he should lose the reward of it; no, it being God's act to prevent the execution of it, he shall be as fully recompensed as if he had done it; "The Lord will build thee a house, and annex the crown of Israel to it,'' v. 10. If there be a willing mind, it shall not only be accepted, but thus rewarded. Nor, 3. Must he think that because he might not do this good work therefore it would never be done, and that it was in vain to think of it; no, I will raise up thy seed, and he shall build me a house, v. 11, 12. God's temple shall be built in the time appointed, though we may not have the honour of helping to build it or the satisfaction of seeing it built. Nor, 4. Must he confine his thoughts to the temporal prosperity of his family, but must entertain himself with the prospect of the kingdom of the Messiah, who should descend from his loins, and whose throne should be established for evermore, v. 14. Solomon was not himself so settled in God's house as he should have been, nor was his family settled in the kingdom: "But there shall one descend from thee whom I will settle in my house and in my kingdom,'' which intimates that he should be both a high priest over the house of God and should have the sole administration of the affairs of God's kingdom among men, all power both in heaven and in earth, in the house and in the kingdom, in the church and in the world. He shall be a priest upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both, and he shall build the temple of the Lord, Zec. 6:12, 13.
We have here David's solemn address to God, in answer to the gracious message he had now received from him. By faith he receives the promises, embraces them, and is persuaded of them, as the patriarchs, Heb, 11:13. How humbly does he here abase himself, and acknowledge his own unworthiness! How highly does he advance the name of God and admire his condescending grace and favour! With what devout affections does he magnify the God of Israel and what a value has he for the Israel of God! With what assurance does he build upon the promise, and with what a lively faith does he put it in suit! What an example is this to us of humble, believing, fervent prayer! The Lord enable us all thus to seek him! These things were largely observed, 2 Sa. 7. We shall therefore here observe only those few expressions in which the prayer, as we find it here, differs from the record of it there, and has something added to it.
I. That which is there expressed by way of question (Is this the manner of men, O Lord God?) is here an acknowledgment: "Thou hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree. Thou hast made me a great man, and then treated me accordingly.'' God, by the covenant-relations into which he admits believers, the titles he gives them, the favours he bestows on them, and the preparations he has made for them, regards them according to the estate of men of high degree, though they are mean and vile. Having himself distinguished them, he treats them as persons of distinction, according to the quality he has been pleased to put upon them. Some give these words here another reading: "Thou hast looked upon me in the form of a man who art in the highest, the Lord God; or, Thou hast made me to see according to the form of a man the majesty of the Lord God.'' And so it points at the Messiah; for, as Abraham, so David, saw his day and was glad, saw it by faith, saw it in fashion as a man, the Word made flesh, and yet saw his glory as that of the only-begotten of the Father. And this was that which God spoke concerning his house for a great while to come, the foresight of which affected him more than any thing. And let it not be thought strange that David should speak so plainly of the two natures of Christ who in spirit called him Lord, though he knew he was to be his Son (Ps. 110:1), and foresaw him lower than the angels for a little while, but afterwards crowned with glory and honour, Heb. 2:6, 7.
II. After the words What can David say more unto thee, it is here added, for the honour of they servant? v. 18. Note, The honour God puts upon his servants, by taking them into covenant and communion with himself, is so great that they need not, they cannot, desire to be more highly honoured. Were they to sit down and wish, they could not speak more for their own honour than the word of God has spoken.
III. It is very observable that what in Samuel is said to be for thy word's sake is here said to be for thy servant's sake, v. 19. Jesus Christ is both the Word of God (Rev. 19:13) and the servant of God (Isa. 42:1), and it is for his sake, upon the score of his meditation, that the promises are both made and made good to all believers; it is in him that they are yea and amen. For his sake is all kindness done, for his sake it is made known; to him we owe all this greatness and from him we are to expect all these great things; they are the unsearchable riches of Christ, which, if by faith we see in themselves and see in the hand of the Lord Jesus, we cannot but magnify as great things, the only true greatness, and speak honourably of accordingly.
IV. In Samuel, the Lord of hosts is said to be the God over Israel; here he is said to be the God of Israel, even a God to Israel, v. 24. His being the God of Israel bespeaks his having the name of their God and so calling himself; his being a God to Israel bespeaks his answering to the name, his filling up the relation, and doing all that to them which might be expected from him. There were those that were called gods of such and such nations, gods of Assyria and Egypt, gods of Hamad and Arpad; but they were no gods to them, for they stood them in no stead at all, were mere ciphers, nothing but a name. But the God of Israel is a God to Israel; all his attributes and perfections redound to their real benefit and advantage. Happy therefore, thrice happy, is the people whose God is Jehovah; for he will be a God to them, a God all-sufficient.
V. The closing words in Samuel are, With thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed forever. That is the language of a holy desire. But the closing words here are the language of a most holy faith: For thou blessest, O Lord! and it shall be blessed for ever, v. 27. 1. He was encouraged to beg a blessing because God had intimated to him that he had blessings in store for him and his family: "Thou blessest, O Lord! and therefore unto thee shall all flesh come for a blessing; unto thee do I come for the blessing promised to me.'' Promises are intended to direct and excite prayer. Has God said, I will bless? Let our hearts answer, Lord, bless me, 2. He was earnest for the blessing because he believed that those whom God blesses are truly and eternally blessed: Thou blessest, and it shall be blessed. Men can but beg the blessing; it is God that commands it. What he designs he effects; what he promises he performs; saying and doing are not two things with him. Nay, it shall be blessed for ever. His blessings shall not be revoked, cannot be opposed, and the benefits conferred by them are such as will survive time and days. David's prayer concludes as God's promise did (v. 14) with that which is for ever. God's word looks at things eternal, and so should our desires and hopes.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. V. v.


text:
The Board of Zoning Appeal will hold a Public Meeting, THURSDAY – MARCH 28, 2019, At the Senior Center 806 Massachusetts Avenue, First Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The following cases will be heard.
Variance:To place a sign on the façade of school building. The sign will include the school logo and name of the school.
The location was designed to include a sign when originally constructed in 1987.
Art. 7.000, Sec. 7.16.22 (Signs).
NANCY & GEORGE SOULE – C/O JAMES J. RAFFERTY, ESQ.
Variance:To construct a 91sf addition at rear of existing dwelling to accommodate a mudroom and bathroom.
Variance: To add two egress landing & steps.
Special Permit Alterations to openings on exterior elevations (relocating windows and doors) within non-conforming yard setbacks. Art. 8.000, Sec. 8.22.2.C (Non-Conforming Structure).
Variance: To construct a rear addition. Art. 5.000, Sec. 5.31 (Table of Dimensional Requirements).
Special Permitnd story window on the right side. Art. 8.000, Sec. 8.22.2.C (Non-Conforming Structure).
DAVID RAIA APPLEBY – C/O SEAN D. HOPE, ESQ.
Variance To construct a third-floor addition located within the front and right yard setbacks.
Art. 5.000, Sec. 5.31 (Table of Dimensional Requirements). & Art. 10.000, Sec. 10.30 (Variance).
Sec. 7.16.22.C.3 (Internal/External Illumination). Art. 10.000, Sec. 10.30 (Variance).
TO VIEW BZA CASE APPLICATIONS, PLANS & SUBMISSIONS, GO TO: https://www.cambridgema.gov/inspection/zoning.aspx at top of page, click “Calendar” > Click hearing date > Click “Board of Zoning Appeal Agenda.” Any information filed after the agenda has been posted can be viewed at the Inspectional Services Department located at 831 Mass Avenue, Cambridge. Copies of this petition are also on file in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Cambridge, MA. Interested persons may provide comments to the Board of Zoning Appeal by appearing in person at the hearing and/or may provide written comments for the Board’s consideration by mailing or delivering them to the attention of the Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeal, 831 Mass Avenue, 02139 or by emailing them to mpacheco@cambridgema.gov. Comments must be submitted prior to the Hearing and include the Case Number. Continued cases are not re-advertised but are posted on the office board at the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall & on the same BZA Web Page 48 hours prior to hearing.

matches:
Art. 7
Art. 8
Art. 5
Art. 8
Art. 5
Art. 10
Art. 10


text:
The work is aimed at obtaining highly efficient one-piece units of gas turbine aircraft engines - disks with blades (blisks). Intermetallic γ΄ + γ alloys based on γ-Ni3Al phase of the VKNA type selected as blade material and Ni-based high alloy EP975 selected for discs have similar initial melting temperatures ( ~ 1340 and ~ 1300 °C, respectively). Solid-phase joints (SPJ) "EP975 //VKNA " are obtained at the homologous temperatures of 0.86-0.91 Tm (K). Fundamental differences in the SPJ structure and that of the adjacent areas for both alloys are determined by the intensity of diffusion processes at the homologous temperatures in intermetallic single-crystals of a thermally stable structure and in the deformed Ni-based alloy of an ultrafine-duplex (γ + γ΄) structure. The structure of single-crystal intermetallic alloys does not basically change either in the process of solid-phase welding at 1125-1200ºC (ε = 8-9%), or under the compression at 1125-1200ºC (ε = 8-9%), or during the subsequent annealing at 1200 °C. The SPJ material structure and properties are determined by the diffusion flows at the interface of the two alloys: Co, Cr, Co, W, Nb diffusing from the Ni-based alloy of the disk into the intermetallic alloy of the blade, on the one hand, and Ni diffusing into the disk alloy, on the other. The diffusion of W and Nb into the intermetallic alloy and Mo and Al into the Ni-based alloy is impeded. High-alloyed γ-solid solution based on the Ni alloy of variable composition (enriched with Al by the intermetallic alloy, wider from the Ni alloy side) is formed at the interface. The weld joint tensile strength on the flat surface varies at room temperature from 0.42 to 0.67 of that of the high tensile strength alloys welded.
1. A. V. Logunov, Yu. N. Shmotin Modern high temperature nickel alloys for disks of gas turbines. Moscow. Public corporation «Science and Technology». (2013) 256 p. (in Russian) [А. В. Логунов, Ю. Н. Шмотин. Современные жаропрочные никелевые сплавы для дисков газовых турбин. Москва. Наука и технология. (2013) 256 с.].
2. K. B. Povarova, A. A. Drozdov, V. P. Buntushkin, N. K. Kazanskaya, O. A. Bazyleva. Materials Science Questions. 54 (2), 85-93 (2008). (in Russian) [К. Б. Поварова, А. А. Дроздов, В. П. Бунтушкин, Н. К. Казанская, О. А. Базылева. Вопросы материаловедения. 54 (2), 85-93 (2008).].
3. Ju. R. Kolobov, E. N. Kablov. Structure and properties of intermetallic materials with nanophase strengthening. Moscow. Publishing house MISiS. (2008) 328 p. (in Russian) [Ю. Р. Колобов, Е. Н. Каблов. Структура и свойства интерметаллидных материалов с нанофазным упрочнением. Москва. Издательский дом МИСиС. (2008) 328 c.].
4. K. B. Povarova, N. K. Kazanskaya, A. A. Drozdov, I. O. Bannykh, V. P. Buntushkin, O. A. Bazyleva, V. G. Kostogryz, V. G. Bakharev, V. I. Mironov. Russian metallurgy. 3, 269-274 (2003).
5. R. Ya. Lutfullin. Letters on Materials. 1 (1), 59-64 (2011). (in Russian) [Р. Я. Лутфуллин. Письма о материалах. 1 (1), 59-64 (2011).].
6. K. B. Povarova, A. A. Drozdov, O. A. Bazyleva, Yu. A. Bondarenko, M. A. Bulakhtina, E. G. Arginbaeva, A. V. Antonova, A. E. Morozov, D. G. Nefedov, Russian metallurgy. 5, 382-390 (2014).

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
JOSEPH RUCZINSKI vs. JOSEPH RUSS & another.
Findings that in the execution and recording of a deed of real estate by parents to a straw and a deed by the straw granting joint life estates in the property to the parents and the remainder to their son and his wife as tenants by the entirety there was no misrepresentation or fraud and that the effect of the deeds was fully explained to the parents by an attorney who advised them and drew the deeds, was understood by the parents, and was in accordance with their then purpose showed no breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the attorney, although he was a brother of the son's wife, or ground for maintenance of a subsequent suit in equity by the surviving parent against the son and his wife for a reconveyance of the property.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on August 1, 1955.
After confirmation of a master's report, the suit was heard for final decree by Forte, J.
Abraham Zintz, for the plaintiff.
RONAN, J. This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing a bill brought by the plaintiff to compel the defendants to reconvey to him certain premises in Cambridge alleged to have been conveyed by him to them through misrepresentation and fraud.
Agnes Russ. The plaintiff and his wife in the early part of 1948 began to talk to their son about conveying the property to him. Agnes was present at some of these conversations. In the early summer of 1948 the plaintiff requested Joseph to have Peter Powilatis call upon the plaintiff in reference to a transfer of the property. Mr. Powilatis is an attorney engaged in a full time position in the legal department of a large public transportation company. He is the brother of Agnes. He conferred with the plaintiff and his wife about July 4, 1948, and advised them to think the matter over. He called a second time in response to the plaintiff's request. On the first or second visit he advised them to retain life estates in the property, and both the plaintiff and his wife adopted this suggestion. The effect of the deeds he proposed to draft was explained in layman's language and he especially pointed out that the deed would include Agnes Russ as a grantee. The plaintiff and his wife understood the purport of the deeds, and made no objection to Agnes being included as a grantee. On August 3, 1948, Mr. Powilatis, accompanied by his unmarried sister Josephine, came to the plaintiff's home. The plaintiff and his wife executed a deed running to Josephine and she executed a deed granting joint life estates to the plaintiff and his wife and the remainder to the defendants as tenants by the entirety. Both deeds were recorded on August 11, 1948.
The master found that no misrepresentation of the contents or the effect of the two deeds was made to the plaintiff or his wife by the defendants or by Mr. Powilatis or Josephine Powilatis, and that in giving the property to their son and daughter-in-law after their own lives they understood the effect of the deeds which was in accordance with their then purpose.
and both were able to make decisions of their own concerning their property. The plaintiff's wife died before the filing of the instant bill. The master also found that the plaintiff did not execute the deed of August 3, 1948, as a result of any fraud, actual or constructive.
The evidence is not reported. The master found that Mr. Powilatis was acting in the capacity of an attorney in advising the plaintiff and his wife and in drafting the deeds transferring their property to their son and his wife. It would have been better if the plaintiff and his wife had selected some other attorney who was not connected by family ties to one of the grantees. "The relation of attorney and client is in any event highly confidential and fiduciary, and business dealings between them are discouraged by the policy of the law. . . . The attorney . . . is forbidden to take any personal advantage of his client." Tarr v. Vivian, 272 Mass. 150, 153. Webster v. Kelly, 274 Mass. 564. Israel v. Sommer, 292 Mass. 113. Reilly v. McAuliffe, 331 Mass. 144, 148. The master expressly found that no misrepresentation was made and that no fraud was exercised upon the plaintiff and his wife, that the effect of the deeds was fully explained to them by Mr. Powilatis, and that they understood the situation. It is plain that no advantage was taken by the attorney. The effect of the findings is that there was no overreaching by Mr. Powilatis and that he did not commit any breach of the fiduciary relationship that he owed the plaintiff. Wellman v. Carter, 286 Mass. 237. Slater v. Munroe, 316 Mass. 129. Barnum v. Fay, 320 Mass. 177, 181.
Final decree affirmed with costs of the appeal.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.