aC Uxe ^resevAeX evidences?.V^beAker V>oV^5 0.ouvAk ciV>u£>e \Vs AisereVinn bnseA _As_
Vultvxo^ on on erroneous \/ieuJ oQ \o.ui AmaunA - in~CohArov££Si|iWJVieVk er kcAA/s CouA 's overlook pyoce; CnvnmAVeA ploAn
ewer (MrA erconeou^ OL^VvCGiVio n or in ^er^ceAck^A_on —
re ievcw\\r tauj | ru\\.v\(7^ ,Al\cA Stolen ne^oVtoAAe vA-e^WkS
HI;
Oovemmen,3\\Jkp^A\er UolUs Oauv -Vs ro>rAr<xA\cAeA Vke ruVmc^ ^resenVeA
on QAossi^ v» 0KL.V\ o»acl ^ S-Q4- k!2. ? cv*xA Nq.^>ue, y« xHmoiSi
in orAe_r Ar> Cover Vke oukrovqeous yvu sCox AucA- oA Akf---

Whether the lower court's erroneous view of law amounted to a miscarriage of justice that warrants Supreme Court review