ÿWPC& ÂNãD0¦éºYfiÉ ?ëæcqƒ¡Â#Tû÷[« Çb¼N¼Öý¤7u¦sThÁ{[+,'ÕMW÷Ë;Œƒ\«@±.j‰b áB1Úâ“7ý—fkÊðC›QRÓo=È ²Ø¥±T¤ð_ù ¡€`þdhÖ¦›$¤ ÷êX‹œidz"Y½¥?Eªpoê afœaÇC€õoÔ^¦ôòP%äëÖáåâKs8ƒß„ö‰%µø¥Ý3¢Ì©o‡WäóáN&âçn¿Ñ‹‡.[ÙpUÐÿü…J\Qð.xØ[î:Tå?Ƹ\ž»:Œ&-Å>¼NÞ·‡U%+\Æ Ÿ½sHšóW~Üìi£ìCqx |ƒöãIÎ[¡9)¬®P e®# ?zÛNµcïlä1AM¹È;YÞr•ÄûšoØ(èlA÷ä8óN”!Sí=PG¦‰ÒA?í+S›°‘¬Ã6¨;)Dö!è@ýRêð¨Vtq.›áAû&ø3ü :„% $jr!ÕŒ›õ—&þÏnÖÌañ†K…#†F UFÌ % 07 O On 4½ Ñ )à U: BC 0U` ` ` ` D3µ µ µ 0Dè è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è è AO, Æ{ 0UA 0D– D/Ú B ˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0h×P ß-v1’b ¢P<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX&âõ$¡Ñ€²Ñ Ö€ÿÿÖ EÝ ƒ&¦)ÝÝ  Ýà@°°*ìàÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚU_A 3Ø'°°à.°3|x2 Ý ƒ¦"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X=lXXXÔÔ€ b/X X=lÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X=lX b/ÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€16,€1996Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ òÝõòX X=lÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(-3¦$©©Ý ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  Ý%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(-3¦$¢¢Ý ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  ÝÑ€°ÑÒܰÒÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñ2ñßM€ *<,(j 8` `€€@Mßñ2ñÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDOROTHY€HUNTER€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€ANDERSON€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€CA€No.€03A01„9510„CV„00336Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌREGIS€HAIRSTYLISTS€and€€€€€:ÌREGIS€CORPORATION€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€Defendants„Appellants€:ÌÌÌÌERNESTINE€JOHNSON€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌREGIS€HAIRSTYLISTS€and€€€€€:€€€€€HON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.ÌREGIS€CORPORATION€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€JUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€Defendants„Appellants€:ÌÌÌÌELVIRA€OLIVER€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌREGIS€HAIRSTYLISTS€and€€€€€:ÌREGIS€CORPORATION€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€Defendants„Appellants€:€€€€€REVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌLINDA€J.€HAMILTON€MOWLES,€WITH€LEWIS,€KING,€KRIEG,€WALDROP€&ÏCATRON,€OF€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLANTSÌÌBRUCE€D.€FOX,€WITH€RIDENOUR,€RIDENOUR€&€FOX,€OF€CLINTON,ÏTENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLEESÌÐ T;Ô3> ÐѲÑÖ€ÿÿÖÑ  ÑÌñ2ñѲÑÖ€ÿÿÖÑ  Ññ2ñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sanders,€Sr.J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àThe€pivotal€issue€on€this€appeal€is€whether€or€notÏthe€trial€court€was€in€error€in€denying€Defendants'€motion€forÏa€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence.€€We€hold€itÏwas,€and€reverse€for€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àThe€three€Plaintiffs„Appellees,€Dorothy€Hunter,ÏErnestine€Johnson,€and€Elvira€Oliver,€filed€separate€suitsÏagainst€Defendants€Regis€Hairstylists€and€Regis€CorporationÏfor€personal€injuries.€€They€each€alleged€the€same€negligenceÏon€behalf€of€the€Defendants€and€their€employees€and€they€eachÏalleged€the€same€type€of€injuries€resulting€from€the€allegedÏnegligence.€€The€cases€were€consolidated€for€trial€and€haveÏbeen€consolidated€on€this€appeal.€€They€will€be€treated€as€oneÏcase€in€this€opinion.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àThe€Defendant„Appellant,€Regis€Corporation,€is€aÏMinnesota€corporation€authorized€to€do€business€in€TennesseeÏand€operates€a€beauty€salon€in€Oak€Ridge€under€the€trade€nameÏof€Regis€Hairstylists.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àEach€of€the€complainants€alleged€in€her€complaintÏthat€on€October€15,€1992,€she€went€to€Regis€HairstylistsÏ(Regis)€to€receive€a€permanent,€as€she€had€previously€done.€ÏHer€health€and€hair€were€in€good€condition€at€that€time.€€OnÏthat€occasion€an€employee€by€the€name€of€Phyllis€WalkerÏapplied€chemicals€to€Plaintiff's€hair€and€performed€theÏservices€of€giving€her€a€permanent.€€She€believed€the€chemicalÐ Ò8R15 Ðused€was€Fabulaxer,€which€had€been€used€on€her€hair€onÏprevious€occasions.€€Within€three€days€after€the€permanent,ÏPlaintiffs's€hair€began€coming€out€in€great€quantities.€ÏPlaintiff's€attempts€to€stop€her€hair€from€coming€out€were€toÏno€avail.€€She€alleged€her€scalp€was€burned€and€she€soughtÏmedical€treatment.€€She€said€she€suffered€emotional€distressÏand€embarrassment.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€alleged€Defendants,€through€their€agentÏand€employeeñ1ñ,ñ1ñ€were€negligent€in€the€application€process€or€inÏthe€choice€of€products€in€the€treatment€of€Plaintiff's€hair.€ÏAs€a€result€of€Defendants'€negligence,€Plaintiff€had€sufferedÏpersonal€injuries€and€emotional€distress€for€which€she€soughtÏdamages.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àThe€Defendants,€for€answer€in€each€of€the€cases,Ïadmitted€the€Plaintiff€had€received€a€permanent€at€its€salonÏbut€denied€any€acts€of€negligence€by€it€or€its€employee.€€TheyÏdenied€the€Plaintiff€was€injured€as€a€result€of€the€manner€inÏwhich€the€permanent€was€given€or€the€products€used,€andÏdemanded€strict€proof€of€the€Plaintiff's€allegations.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àUpon€the€trial€of€the€case,€the€proof€showed€each€ofÏthe€Plaintiffs€is€a€black€woman€who€has€kinky€hair.€€BeautyÏsalons€such€as€Regis€use€a€special€chemical€solution€calledÏFabulaxer€to€take€the€kinks€out€of€the€hair€and€make€itÏstraight.€€It€is€referred€to€as€a€"relaxer."€€Because€it€is€aÏchemical€and€can€be€damaging€to€the€hair,€heat€should€not€beÏapplied€to€the€hair€while€the€relaxer€is€on€it€and€the€relaxerÏshould€not€remain€on€the€hair€for€more€than€10€to€15€minutes,Ïdepending€to€some€extent€on€whether€the€hair€is€course€orÏfine.€€The€application€of€the€relaxer,€straightening€the€hairÐ 09°16 Ðand€styling€the€hair€is€referred€to€as€a€"perm."€€To€keep€theÏhair€in€good€condition,€it€is€necessary€for€a€woman€to€get€aÏperm€every€three€or€four€months€to€straighten€the€new€growthÏof€hair€following€her€last€perm.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àEach€of€the€Plaintiffs€was€a€regular€customer€ofÏRegis€and€had€received€perms€there€before€and€Phyllis€WalkerÏhad€given€them€perms€before€October€15,€1992,€which€had€beenÏsatisfactory.€€They€each€testified,€however,€that€on€OctoberÏ15,€when€Phyllis€Walker€gave€her€a€perm,€Ms.€Walker€appliedÏthe€relaxer€to€her€hair,€then€put€her€under€a€hair€dryer€andÏleft€her€there€approximately€25€to€40€minutes€before€removingÏthe€dryer.€€They€each€testified€that€about€three€days€afterÏreceiving€the€perm€her€hair€began€falling€out.€€They€eachÏtestified€that€after€the€hair€stopped€falling€out,€the€newÏgrowth€of€hair€would€break€off€when€it€got€about€an€inch€long.€ÏThey€each€testified€they€could€not€now€get€a€satisfactoryÏperm.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àPhyllis€Walker€had€left€the€employ€of€Regis€moreÏthan€two€years€prior€to€the€trial€of€the€case€and€could€not€beÏlocated€by€the€Defendants€as€a€witness.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àMs.€Janet€Brant,€manager€of€Regis€at€the€Oak€RidgeÏsalon,€testified€the€placing€of€a€person€under€a€hair€dryerÏwith€relaxant€on€her€hair€would€be€an€improper€procedure€and€aÏdeparture€from€the€procedure€which€Phyllis€Walker€had€beenÏtrained€to€use.€€The€Defendants'€defense€of€the€case€was€basedÏon€the€theory€Ms.€Walker€was€not€acting€within€the€scope€ofÏher€authority€at€Regis€when€she€placed€Plaintiffs€under€hairÏdryers€with€relaxer€solution€on€their€hair.€€It€insisted€Ms.Ð 09°16 ÐWalker€had€grossly€deviated€from€the€usual€business€procedureÏof€Regis.€ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àThe€trial€court€did€not€accept€Defendants'€theory€ofÏdefense€and€directed€a€verdict€as€to€liability€in€favor€ofÏeach€of€the€Plaintiffs.€€The€jury€fixed€the€damages€of€DorothyÏHunter€at€$15,000.€€They€found€the€Defendants€to€be€95%€atÏfault€and€Plaintiff€5%€at€fault.€€The€jury€fixed€the€damagesÏof€Ernestine€Johnson€at€$32,000.€€The€court€declined€to€chargeÏthe€jury€on€comparative€fault€in€her€case.€€The€jury€fixed€theÏdamages€of€Elvira€Oliver€(Moore)€at€$15,000.€€They€found€theÏDefendants€90%€at€fault€and€Plaintiff€10%€at€fault.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àJudgments€were€entered€in€keeping€with€the€jury'sÏverdict,€after€which€the€Defendants€filed€a€motion€for€a€newÏtrial.€€The€motion€was€overruled€and€Defendants€have€appealedÏand€presented€the€following€issues€for€review:€€(1)€The€courtÏerred€in€denying€Defendants'€motion€for€a€new€trial€based€onÏnewly€discovered€evidence;€(2)€The€court€erred€in€admittingÏinto€evidence€statements€made€by€Phyllis€Walker€to€theÏPlaintiffs;€(3)€The€court€erred€in€not€allowing€the€jury€toÏconsider€comparative€negligence€of€Plaintiffs€for€failing€toÏremover€the€hair€dryer€when€they€felt€their€scalp€burning€fromÏthe€hair€dryer;€and€(4)€The€court€erred€in€directing€a€verdictÏon€the€issue€of€liability€of€Defendants.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àWe€find€the€Defendants'€first€issue€to€beÏcontrolling.€€We€also€find€the€court€was€in€error€in€denyingÏthe€Defendants'€motion€for€a€new€trial.Ìâ âÐ ˆ703 Ðà 4 àà Œ àIn€the€case€of€ò òSeay€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleó ó,€654€S.W.2dÐ € Ðâ â397,€401€(Tenn.App.1983)€this€court€quoted€with€approval€theÏfollowing€fundamental€rules€to€be€considered€in€granting€orÏdenying€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence:ÌÒ ÜÒÒ°ÒÓÓ"There€are€well€settled€rules€for€granting€of€newÏtrials,€by€which€the€present€case€must€beÏgoverned.€€1.€€If€a€party€omits€to€procureÏevidence€which€with€ordinary€diligence€he€mightÏhave€procured,€in€relation€to€those€points,€on€theÏfirst€trial,€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€for€theÏpurpose€of€introducing€such€testimony€shall€beÏdenied.€€2.€€If€the€newly€discovered€evidenceÏconsists€merely€of€additional€facts€andÏcircumstances,€going€to€establish€the€same€pointsÏwhich€were€principally€controverted€before,€or€ofÏadditional€witnesses€to€the€same€facts,€suchÏevidence€is€cumulative,€and€a€new€trial€shall€notÏbe€granted.€€In€cases€to€which€these€principlesÏclearly€and€unquestionably€apply,€the€granting€orÏrefusal€of€a€new€trial€is€not€a€matter€ofÏdiscretion.€€The€parties€have€a€legal€right€to€aÏdecision€conformable€to€those€principles.€€WhereÏthere€is€doubt€about€the€point€of€negligence,€orÏas€to€its€materiality,€it€becomes€a€matter€ofÏdiscretion;€and€the€Court€will€not€„€perhapsÏcannot€„€rightfully€interfere."ÌÌÓÓÒÜ ÒÒ°ÒThe€only€one€of€these€rules€addressed€by€the€trial€court€inÏdenying€the€Defendants'€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€theÏrequirement€of€ordinary€diligence€in€procuring€the€informationÏprior€to€trial.€€The€court€said,€as€pertinent,€in€his€orderÏdenying€the€motion:€€"[T]he€court€finds€that€the€defendant€didÏnot€exercise€reasonable€diligence€in€attempting€to€locateÏPhyllis€Walker€prior€to€the€trial€of€the€case...."€ÌÌà 4 àà Œ à€We€find€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€this€holding.€€In€support€of€the€motion€for€a€newÏtrial,€Regis€filed€the€affidavits€of€its€attorney,€Mr.€HarryÏP.€Ogden,€its€salon€manager,€Ms.€Janet€Brant,€and€the€specialÏinvestigator,€Mr.Rockwell€Dukes,€who€was€hired€by€theÏDefendants€to€try€to€locate€Ms.€Walker.€€The€affidavits€setÏforth€the€efforts€which€were€made€to€locate€Ms.€Walker€priorÏto€trial.Ð :œ2: Їà 4 àà Œ àMr.€Ogden€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€he€realizedÏthe€importance€of€contacting€Ms.€Walker€and€getting€herÏversion€of€the€allegations€in€the€complaints€from€the€veryÏbeginning€of€the€lawsuits.€€He€contacted€Ms.€Brant,€theÏmanager€of€Regis,€and€learned€Ms.€Walker€had€been€terminatedÏby€Regis€approximately€a€year€earlier,€and€Ms.€Brant€hadÏtalked€to€her€about€a€month€after€her€termination€but€had€notÏseen€or€heard€from€her€after€that€date.€€Ms.€Brant€told€himÏshe€understood€Ms.€Walker€was€still€living€in€the€Oak€RidgeÏCommunity.€€Mr.€Ogden€contacted€Ms.€Brant€from€time„to„time€toÏlearn€whether€or€not€Ms.€Walker€had€been€located.€€In€October,Ï1994,€some€four€months€before€trial,€Mr.€Ogden€employed€aÏspecial€investigator,€Mr.€Rockwell€Dukes,€of€Gay€&€Taylor,ÏInc.,€to€locate€Ms.€Walker.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àIn€December,€1994,€Mr.€Bruce€Fox,€counsel€for€theÏPlaintiffs,€told€Mr.€Ogden€one€of€his€clients€had€told€him€Ms.ÏWalker€was€or€had€recently€been€incarcerated€in€the€AndersonÏCounty€jail.€€Mr.€Ogden's€office€immediately€contacted€theÏAnderson€County€jail€and€was€informed€Ms.€Walker€had€beenÏincarcerated€there.€€They€were€given€her€last„known€addressÏand€also€the€name€and€address€and€telephone€number€of€Ms.ÏWalker's€"next€of€kin,"€Sherry€Bohannan,€who€was€Ms.€Walker'sÏdaughter.€€This€information€was,€in€turn,€given€to€the€specialÏinvestigator,€Mr.€Dukes.€€Mr.€Ogden€further€stated€that€up€toÏthe€date€of€trial,€which€was€February€2,€1995,€he€had€beenÏunable€to€locate€Ms.€Walker€and€had€no€knowledge€of€what€herÏtestimony€would€be€until€after€the€trial€had€been€completed.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àMr.€Rockwell€Dukes,€the€special€investigatorÏemployed€by€Regis€to€locate€Ms.€Walker,€filed€an€affidavitÐ 09°18 Ðenumerating€the€numerous€efforts€he€made€to€locate€Ms.€Walker,Ïher€daughter,€Sherry€Bohannan,€and€her€son,€Mr.€Hazard.€€HeÏleft€messages€asking€them€to€return€his€calls;€he€wroteÏletters€asking€them€to€contact€him;€he€made€numerous€houseÏcalls,€all€without€success.€€Everything€had€led€him€to€believeÏMs.€Walker€was€in€the€Oak€Ridge€Community€until€February€1,Ï1995.€€On€February€1,€1995,€the€day€before€the€case€was€setÏfor€trial,€Sherry€Bohannan,€Mrs.€Walker's€daughter,€called€Mr.ÏDuke's€office€and€left€a€telephone€message€saying€"that€herÏmother€was€currently€living€in€Greeneville€and€was€notÏinterested€in€talking€to€me."€€Mr.€Dukes€returned€Ms.ÏBohannan's€telephone€call€that€same€day€and€she€reiterated€herÏoriginal€telephone€message€to€him.€€He€asked€her€for€herÏmother's€address€and€telephone€number€in€Greeneville€but€sheÏrefused€to€give€them€to€him,€saying,€"My€mother€is€notÏinterested€in€talking€to€you."ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àMs.€Janet€Brant,€who€was€the€manager€of€the€RegisÏsalon€in€Oak€Ridge€from€the€date€it€opened€in€1991,€stated€inÏher€affidavit€that€Phyllis€Walker€was€a€black€hair€stylist€€Ïemployed€by€Regis€from€February€to€October,€1992.€€She€wasÏaware€of€the€importance€of€locating€Phyllis€Walker€at€allÏtimes€after€learning€of€the€filing€of€the€lawsuits.€€Ms.ÏWalker€was€discharged€by€Regis€approximately€one€year€beforeÏthe€lawsuits€were€filed.€€She€had€only€one€conversation€withÏMs.€Walker€since€her€discharge€and€that€occurred€about€a€monthÏafter€her€termination.€€At€that€time€Ms.€Brant€was€not€awareÏof€any€claims€against€Regis€and€had€no€reason€to€question€Ms.ÏWalker€about€them€until€after€suit€was€filed.€She€stated€thatÏfrom€time„to„time€pending€the€cases,€she€inquired€of€herÏemployees€and€particularly€her€black€hair€stylists,€if€theyÐ 09°1: Ðhad€any€idea€of€Ms.€Walker's€whereabouts.€€On€all€occasionsÏshe€was€told€they€believed€she€was€still€living€in€the€OakÏRidge€community€but€no€one€knew€where€she€lived.€€She€gave€allÏof€her€information€to€Mr.€Ogden€and€the€special€investigator,ÏMr.€Dukes.€€She€stated€she€did€not€know€where€Ms.€Walker€wasÏat€the€time€of€trial€and€had€not€had€any€contact€with€herÏsince€1992.€€Ms.€Brant€further€stated€Ms.€Walker€contacted€herÏby€telephone€on€February€16,€1995,€which€was€two€weeks€afterÏthe€trial.€€Ms.€Walker€stated€she€had€just€learned€theyÏ(Regis)€were€looking€for€her.€€She€stated€she€had€heard€whatÏhappened€at€the€trial€and€said,€"It€didn't€happen."€€She€feltÏshe€had€been€"slandered"€at€the€trial€and€in€the€media'sÏreporting€of€the€trial.€€She€stated€she€never€put€theÏPlaintiffs€under€the€hair€dryer€with€relaxer€on€their€hair.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àIn€further€support€of€its€motion€for€a€new€trial,ÏRegis€filed€a€sworn€statement€in€response€to€questions€byÏcounsel€in€which€Ms.€Walker€denied€and€contradicted€most€ofÏthe€relevant€testimony€of€the€Plaintiffs.€€The€sworn€statementÏcontains€some€42€pages€and€to€summarize€the€statement€wouldÏserve€only€to€lengthen€this€opinion.€€Suffice€to€say,€if€Ms.ÏWalker's€testimony€is€accepted€by€the€jury,€it€more€probablyÏthan€not,€will€affect€the€judgment€on€a€new€trial.ÌÌà 4 àà Œ àWe€find€the€Defendant€has€met€the€rules€set€outÏabove€for€a€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence.€€InÏview€of€our€ruling€on€this€issue,€the€other€issues€areÏpretermitted.Ìâ âÐ à5`.3 Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€theÏcase€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.€€The€costÏof€this€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€Appellees.€Ìâ âÓÓÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clifford€E.€Sanders,€Sr.J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:€ÌÌÌ______________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.€ÌÌÌ______________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌà 4 àà Œ àÌÌÌÌÌ