Question: The famous car Rolls-Royce has been largely hand-made and always one of the most expensive cars on the market. 

In fact, Rolls-Royce is made up of two men's names, Charles S. Rolls and Henry Royce. They came from very different backgrounds, received very different educations and when they met; their careers were going in very different directions. 

In 1903, Royce bought a second-hand France Decauville car. He found the car unreliable, difficult to start and overheated. Royce decided he could do better himself and set about building two-cylinder car of his own design. The first of these, built almost completely by Royce himself, was a success in almost every way: it started easily, ran smoothly and was very reliable. It never failed to impress everyone who saw it rode in the car, including Rolls. 

While he was a university student at Cambridge, Rolls acquired a French Peugeot. It was the first automobile seen at Cambridge and by the time Rolls finished his studies, he was probably the most skilled driver in Britain. In 1902, Rolls went into the business of selling cars and became a leading automobile 

. He was looking for a British car to market when he was told that Henry Royce had designed and built a two-cylinder automobile. 

In 1904, Royce and Rolls joined together to build and sell motor car. They combined their talents--Royce the engineer and Rolls the salesman and businessman. 

And, just two years later, the partnership produced the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost, a milestone car acclaimed by many by the time as the " best in the world". Over the years the automaker built a legendary reputation. 1. is the vehicle named for a person?
2. what are they?
3. did the second one buy something?
4. what?
5. when?
6. did he like it?
7. why?
8. did he do something about it?
9. what?
10. did he do this alone? Provide a numbered list of answers.
****
A numbered of answers: 1. two men's names
2. Charles S. Rolls and Henry Royce
3. Yes
4. a second-hand France Decauville car
5. In 1903
6. No
7. Because he found the car unreliable, difficult to start and overheated
8. Yes
9. He set about building two-cylinder car of his own design
10. almost


Question: CHAPTER XVI 

Her vague, unreal existence continued. It seemed in some previous life-time that Billy had gone away, that another life-time would have to come before he returned. She still suffered from insomnia. Long nights passed in succession, during which she never closed her eyes. At other times she slept through long stupors, waking stunned and numbed, scarcely able to open her heavy eyes, to move her weary limbs. The pressure of the iron band on her head never relaxed. She was poorly nourished. Nor had she a cent of money. She often went a whole day without eating. Once, seventy-two hours elapsed without food passing her lips. She dug clams in the marsh, knocked the tiny oysters from the rocks, and gathered mussels. 

And yet, when Bud Strothers came to see how she was getting along, she convinced him that all was well. One evening after work, Tom came, and forced two dollars upon her. He was terribly worried. He would like to help more, but Sarah was expecting another baby. There had been slack times in his trade because of the strikes in the other trades. He did not know what the country was coming to. And it was all so simple. All they had to do was see things in his way and vote the way he voted. Then everybody would get a square deal. Christ was a Socialist, he told her. 

"Christ died two thousand years ago," Saxon said. 

"Well?" Tom queried, not catching her implication. 

"Think," she said, "think of all the men and women who died in those two thousand years, and socialism has not come yet. And in two thousand years more it may be as far away as ever. Tom, your socialism never did you any good. It is a dream."  1. Who mentioned Christ first?
2. Who discussed it with him?
3. Did she agree with him?
4. What time frame did she point out?
5. What social system was mentioned?
6. Was she well rested?
7. What condition did she have?
8. What condition did Saxon suffer from?
9. Was she eating well?
10. What was eating?
11. Did she get them from the market?
12. How did she get them?
13. From where?
14. Did she have plenty of them?
15. Where there enough for three meals a day?
16. Who was she missing?
17. Was he returning soon?
18. Was she a rich woman?
19. How much cash did she have?
20. How much did she have before that?
21. Who gave her that cash?
22. Was he cheap?
23. Why only $2? Provide a numbered list of answers.
****
A numbered of answers: 1. Bud Strothers
2. Saxon
3. no
4. two thousand years
5. socialism
6. no
7. she was expecting another baby.
8. unknown
9. no
10. clams, oysters and mussels.
11. no
12. She dug and gathered them
13. the marsh
14. no
15. no
16. Billy
17. no
18. no
19. two dollars
20. not a cen
21. Tom
22. no
23. There had been slack times in his trade


Question: (CNN) -- It's been 31 years since Stanley Guidroz first reported his 3-year-old son missing in Tacoma, Washington. 

Investigators, after reopening the cold case, now say the boy, Wallace Guidroz, was never missing at all and that his father had killed him. 

Guidroz, 57, has been charged with first-degree manslaughter after he confessed to the crime, said Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist on Tuesday. 

"This is another success for the Cold Case Unit," said Lindquist. "Justice matters, no matter how long it takes." 

Guidroz first reported his son missing in January 1983, telling Tacoma police that his son had gone missing in a neighborhood park after they had gone fishing together. Guidroz said he believed that a family they had met in the park had kidnapped him, prosecutors said. 

Police were unable to locate a family that fit the description Guidroz gave them, and they were unable to connect Guidroz to the boy's disappearance. 

For years, the mystery of what happened to Wallace remained unsolved. 

Guidroz left Washington state in 1984 and did not return, according to a press release from the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office. 

In 2011, Cold Case Unit Detective Gene Miller reopened the case. Miller reviewed old documents from the initial investigation and saw that Guidroz's stories never seemed to add up. 

There were "several inconsistencies in Guidroz's account of the events from the day Wallace went missing," the release said. 

Guidroz resurfaced in Louisiana in March 2011 after reports that he had been charged in the killing of his wife, who is not the mother of Wallace.  1. Who is the father in this story?
2. Who is his son?
3. How old was he when he was reported lost?
4. what he really lost?
5. WHat actually happened to him?
6. How do we know?
7. How old is the dad now?
8. What are teh charges against him?
9. Where did he originally tell the police his child was lost?
10. Where were they supposed to be in Tacoma?
11. What were they doing there?
12. Did he ever move?
13. When?
14. when was the case reopened?
15. By who?
16. Where did they eventually find the father?
17. What were the charges against him there?
18. was she the mom? Provide a numbered list of answers.
****
A numbered of answers:
1. Stanley Guidroz
2. Wallace Guidroz
3. three
4. no
5. his father killed him
6. the Prosecutor said
7. 57
8. first-degree manslaughter
9. Tacoma, Washington.
10. a neighborhood park
11. fishing
12. yes
13. 1984
14. In 2011
15. Gene Miller
16. Louisiana
17. killing his wife
18. no