OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Men-at-the-Bar/Hull, Henry Charles

​Hull, Henry Charles, B.A. (honours) London Univ. 1853, equity draftsman and conveyancer, a student of the Inner Temple 5 Nov., 1852 (then aged 19), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1855 (only son of late Rev. Henry William Hull, of Speldhurst, Kent); born , 1833; married 14 Aug., 1862, Fanny Amelia, 2nd dau. of Rev. P. C. Law, rector of North Repps, Norfolk.
    32, Oakley Road, N.; 6, Stone Buildings, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Hughes-Hughes, William

​Hughes-Hughes, William, M.A., Christ Church, Oxon, 1841, went the South-eastern circuit, J.P. Middlesex and Westminster, a commissioner of lieutenancy for city of London, a student of Lincoln's Inn 23 Nov., 1838 (then aged 21), went to the Inner Temple 13 and called to the bar there 28 Jan., 1842 (only son of William Hughes-Hughes, of Lincoln's Inn, bar.-at-law); born 6 July, 1817; married 13 Feb., 1845, Ellert, youngest dau. of Joseph Oldham, Esq., of Stamford Hill, Middlesex; she died 14 Jan., 1885, leaving issue.
    5, Highbury Quadrant, N.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Hughesdon, Joseph Charles

​Hughesdon, Joseph Charles, late district and sessions judge Tinnevelly, E.I.C.S., a student of the Middle Temple 14 Nov., 1872, called to the bar 10 May, 1876 (only son of late Joseph Hughesdon, of Calcutta, Bengal, merchant); born , .
    26, Cornwall Road, Westbourne Park, W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Hugues, Marie Louis Alexandre

​Hugues, Marie Louis Alexandre, a student of the Inner Temple 22 April, 1874 (then aged 17), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1877 (2nd son of Marie Alexandre Joseph Augustus Hugues, of Port Louis, Mauritius, sworn broker); born , 1857.
    Port Louis, Mauritius.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Hulme, Thomas Allin

​Hulme, Thomas Allin, LL.B. Trin. Coll., Dublin, a member of the Northern circuit, capt. 11th Lancashire rifle volunteers since 1877, a student of Lincoln's Inn 18 Nov., 1868 (aged 26), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1872 (eldest son of Rev. Samuel Hulme, of Altrincham, Cheshire, Wesleyan minister); born 17 March, 1842.
    57, Princess Street. Manchester.
# Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China/Preface

Layout 2
The 2022 National Security Strategy states that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the only competitor to the United States with the intent and, increasingly, the capacity to reshape the international order. As a result, the 2022 National Defense Strategy identifies the PRC as the “pacing challenge” for the Department of Defense. As the PRC seeks to achieve “national rejuvenation” by its centenary in 2049, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders view a modern, capable, and “world class” military as essential to overcoming what Beijing sees as an increasingly turbulent international environment.
The DoD annual report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China charts the current course of the PRC’s national, economic, and military strategy, and offers insight on the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) strategy, current capabilities and activities, as well as its future modernization goals.
In 2022, the PRC turned to the PLA as an increasingly capable instrument of statecraft. Throughout the year, the PLA adopted more coercive actions in the Indo-Pacific region, while accelerating its development of capabilities and concepts to strengthen the PRC’s ability to “fight and win wars” against a “strong enemy,” counter an intervention by a third party in a conflict along the PRC’s periphery, and to project power globally. At the same time, the PRC largely denied, cancelled, and ignored recurring bilateral defense engagements, as well as DoD requests for military-to-military communication at multiple levels.
This report illustrates the importance of meeting the pacing challenge presented by the PRC’s increasingly capable military.
Report Scope: This report covers security and military developments involving the PRC until the end of 2022.
# Munter v. Weil Corset Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 276
Munter v. Weil Corset Company
Argued: Jan. 22, 1923. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1923
Mr. Elijah N. Zoline, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Benjamin Slade, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Munzinger, Werner

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Munzinger, Werner."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Munzinger, Werner," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Munzinger, Werner," in The Encyclopedia Americana, New York: The Encyclopedia Americana Corporation (1906)
* "Munzinger, Werner," in The New International Encyclopædia, New York: Dodd, Mead and Co. (1905)
# Murder Act 1267

* related portals: England.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Statutes made at Marlborough, alias Marleberge, 18 Novemb. Anno 52 HEN. III. and Anno Dom. 1267.
Murder Act 1267
1267 (52 Hen. 3) C A P. XXV.
IN the Year of Grace, One thousand two hundred sixty seven, the two and fiftieth Year of the Reign of King HENRY, Son of King JOHN, in the Utas of St. Martin, the said King our Lord providing for the better Estate of his Realm of England, and for the more speedy Ministration of Justice, as belongeth to the Office of a King, the more discreet Men of the Realm being called together, as well of the higher as of the lower Estate: It was provided, agreed, and ordained, that whereas the Realm of England of late had been disquieted with manifold Troubles and Dissensions; for Reformation whereof Statutes and Laws be right necessary, whereby the Peace and Tranquillity of the People must be observed:Wherein the King, intending to devise convenient Remedy, hath made these Acts, Ordinances, and Statutes underwritten, which he willeth to be observed for ever firmly and inviolably of all his Subjects, as well high as low.
What Kind of Man-slaughter shall be adjudged Murther.
Murther from henceforth shall not be judged before our Justices, where it is found Misfortuneonly, but it shall take place in such as are slain by Felony, and not otherwise.
Keyling 123.
Co. Ent. 354.
2 Inst. 148. 2 Roll. 120.
Note : this act is listed in the Chronological Table of Statutes as the Murder Act, 1267
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it was created by a public body of the United Kingdom with Crown Status and commercially published before 1974.
See Crown copyright artistic works, Crown copyright non-artistic works and List of Public Bodies with Crown Status.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Muntjac

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Muntjac."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Muntjac," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* Muntjac in The Americana 1906
# Mural monument erected Molland Church by Sir John Berry to his father Rev. Daniel Berry

​Vnder this monument Lyeth the Body of Daniel Berry, Batchelor of Divinity sometime minister of this church & that of the Parish of Knowstone wherein he was born. Who for his zeal in the support of the Church of England & Loyalty to that Martyred King King Charles the first was first sequestred by the then Rebels & ever after persecuted till he died, being y͏ͤ 18 day of March in the year of our Lord 1652 & of his Age 45, Leaving behind him 7 sons: Robert, Iohn, Daniel, Nathaniel, Anthony, Philip & Thomas and two Daughters Elizabeth and Anne by Elizabeth his Wife (Daughter of Iohn Moore of Moorehaise of this County, Esq.), Who Dyed the 13th day of October in the year of the Lord 1663, and lyeth here likewise interred.
The second of their sons Iohn Who hath received the Honour of Knighthood from his present Majesty King Charles the Second for his long & many good services at sea, Honouring the memory of all Orthodox and Loyal men of the late times and out of a pious regard to his Father's Sufferings, Erected this Monument the 17th day of July in y͏ͤ year of our Lord 1664
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Munsuri v. Fricker/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 121
Munsuri v. Fricker
Argued: October 27 and 30, 1911. --- Decided: December 4, 1911
This case relates to the same bankruptcy proceeding, steps in which formed the basis of the appeal in case No. 22 [[[222 U.S. 114]], 56 L. ed. 118, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67], which has just been dismissed.
In the petition for voluntary adjudication of the alleged bankrupt firm, Julian Munsuri was averred to be a limited or special partner. Following certain proceedings before the referee and a motion by general creditors, the court below, on October 25, 1907, entered an order declaring Munsuri to be a general partner of the firm and his personal estate liable for the firm debts. It was not, however, until February 19, 1909,-nearly sixteen months after the entry of the order, and following the disallowance by the court of the claims of certain creditors which had been allowed by the referee,-that this proceeding was commenced to obtain a review of the order and judgment of October 25, 1907. The proceeding for review was begun by the filing in the court below of a document styled 'Petition for a Writ of Review to the United States District Court for Porto Rico,' verified and certified as such by the attorney for Missouri, which document, however, although couched in part in the phraseology of a petition, is also in form a writ of error, directed to the judge of the court below. In the bond and citation reference is made to the proceeding as the prosecution of a writ of review for the correction of the judgment or order in the petition mentioned.
Objection is made by the counsel for the trustee to the exercise of jurisdiction by this court, on the ground that the supposed writ and citation thereon and the docketing of the transcript are insufficient in law under any statute, or rule, or practice of the court, to bring within the appellate jurisdiction of this court, for its consideration or correction, any of the matters and things charged in the transcript. On the other hand, the contention is that the proceeding may be sustained as an appeal solely upon the question of jurisdiction under § 5 of the judiciary act of 1891 [26 Stat. at L. 827, chap. 517, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 549], or as a petition to superintend and revise in matter of law, under § 24b of the bankruptcy act. Aside from any question as to the lapse of time between the entry of the assailed order and the commencement of this proceeding for review, the decision in Tefft, W. & Co. v. Munsuri, No. 22, of this term, just decided, is controlling, because it was there expressly held that the express provisions for review contained in the bankruptcy act were controlling, and that review under 24b by this court is not authorized by the act.
Dismissed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Muratorian fragment

* related portals: Christianity.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment is a seventh-century Latin manuscript, that contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170. The fragment lists all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its anonymous original compiler. It was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan by Father Ludovico Antonio Muratori, the most famous Italian historian of his generation, and published in 1740.
English-language translations of Muratorian fragment include:
# Michels v. Olmstead

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
157 U.S. 198
Michels v. Olmstead
John D. Conely, for appellant.
John L. Peak, for appellee.
Mr. Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Michelson v. United States/Concurrence Frankfurter

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Frankfurter
* Dissenting Opinion Rutledge
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 469
Michelson v. United States
Argued: Oct. 14, 15, 1948. --- Decided: Dec 20, 1948
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, concurring.
Despite the fact that my feelings run in the general direction of the views expressed by Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE in his dissent, I join the Court's opinion. I do so because I believe it to be unprofitable, on balance, for appellate courts to formulate rigid rules for the exclusion of evidence in courts of law that outside them would not be regarded as clearly irrelevant in the determination of issues. For well-understood reasons this Court's occasional ventures in formulating such rules hardly encourage confidence in denying to the federal trial courts a power of control over the allowable scope of cross-examination possessed by trial judges in practically all State courts. After all, such uniformity of rule in the conduct of trials in the crystallization of experience even when due allowance is made for the force of imitation. To reject such an impressive body of experience would imply a more dependable wisdom in a matter of this sort than I can claim.
To leave the District Courts of the United States the discretion given to them by this decision presupposes a high standard of professional competence, good sense, fairness and courage on the part of the federal district judges. If the United States District Courts are not manned by judges of such qualities, appellate review, no matter how stringent, can do very little to make up for the lack of them.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE, with whom Mr. Justice MURPHY joins, dissenting.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Michelson v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter

## Dissenting Opinion

    Rutledge
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 469
Michelson v. United States
Argued: Oct. 14, 15, 1948. --- Decided: Dec 20, 1948
Mr. Louis J. Castellano, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph M. Howard, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Company v. Calvert Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 157
Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Company v. Calvert Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
Argued: Jan. 5, 6, 1954. --- Decided: Feb 8, 1954
See 347 U.S. 931, 74 S.Ct. 528.
[Syllabus from pages 157-158 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. D. H. Culton, Amarillo, Tex., Samuel A. L. Morgan, Houston, Tex., for appellants.
Messrs. W. V. Geppert, John Ben Shepperd, Austin, Tex., for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Minnesota ex rel. Whipple v. Martinson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 41
Minnesota ex rel. Whipple v. Martinson
Argued: March 17, 1921. --- Decided: April 11, 1921
Messrs. Thomas E. Latimer and Charles Burke Elliott, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 42-43 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. James E. Markham and Clifford L. Hilton, both of St. Paul, Minn., for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
309 U.S. 270
Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County
Argued: Feb. 6, 7, 1940. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1940
Mr. Joseph F. Cowern, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
Messrs. Chester S. Wilson and Kent C. van den Berg, both of St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Minnesota Tea Company v. Helvering

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 609
Minnesota Tea Company v. Helvering
Argued: Dec. 16, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 17, 1938
Mr. James G. Nye, of Duluth, Minn., for petitioner.
Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Muschette v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 569
Muschette v. United States
Alfred L. Scanlan, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Muschette v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 569
Muschette v. United States
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774.
Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Mursheen Durkin

In the days I went a-courtin', I was never tired resortin' To the alehouse and the playhouse and many's the house besides, But I told me brother Seamus I'd go off and go right famous And before I'd return again I'd roam the whole world wide.
Chorus So goodbye, Muirsheen Durkin, I'm sick and tired of working, No more I'll dig the praties, no longer I'll be poor. For as sure as me name is Carney I'll be off to California, where instead of digging praties I'll be digging lumps of gold.
I've courted girls in Blarney, in Kanturk, and in Killarney In Passage, and in Queenstown—that is, the Cobh of Cork. But goodbye to all this pleasure, for I'm going to take me leisure And the next time that you hear t'will be A letter from New York.
Goodbye to all the boys at home, I'm sailing far across the foam To try to make me fortune in far America, For there's silver there aplenty for the poor man and the gentry And when I do come back again I never more will stray.
# Muschany v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
324 U.S. 49
Muschany v. United States
Argued: Oct. 18, 1944. --- Decided: Feb 5, 1945
Mr. William R. Gentry, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners Muschany.
Mr. Samuel M. Watson, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners Andrews.
Mr. Paul A. Freund, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Muscle Building

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Muscle Building."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Muscle Building" (1905), an article by Luther Halsey Gulick
* Muscle Building (1924), a book by Earle Edwin Liederman
# Montoya v. Gonzales

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
232 U.S. 375
Montoya v. Gonzales
Argued: January 27, 1914. --- Decided: February 24, 1914
Mr. Alonzo B. McMillen for appellants.
Messrs. George S. Klock and Neill B. Field for appellees.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Monument of Bielowski

[Poem „Pomnik Bielowskiego” in: „Marsz żałobny z osobnej całości symfonicznej poświęcony pamięci Augusta Bielowskiego” („Funeral March of a separate full symphony in memory of August Bielowski”), ed. Karol. Wild, Lvov, 1876. The translation was published in 2018 by Marcin Tarnowski in: Utwory instrumentalne Władysława Tarnowskiego, p. 45."]
They erect monuments of bronze for others, Also of marble – raise graves, You monument erect oneself this power, Which with heart of Poland fussed for ever!
For once near finished today mourning we stand: Because the monument of Poland – is your monument! Will not destroy it nor storms, nor fires, Nor enemy, nor lightning will smash it, nor will bend, Nor sword, nor earth quake, nor cannons, It will be always – content it: glory! History-giant by his is on guard
Time – as lion clung, to strike him will not dare, Over him watch Eagles and Chases  And they go in ages -  In far end of histories:  "Monumenta Poloniae!"
* ↑ Orzeł Biały i Pogoń (lub Orły i Pogonie) – White Eagle and Chase (or Eagles and Chases) – coat of arms of Poland in times of union with Lithuania.
* ↑ August Bielowski was editor and publisher of voluminous “Monumenta Poloniae!”, which contain fundamental documents of polish history.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.