OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Gesta Romanorum (1905)/Of the Inheritance and Joy of a faithful Soul

TALE XCIII.
OF THE INHERITANCE AND JOY OF A FAITHFUL SOUL.
A certain powerful lord sent his two sons to study, that they might, by their own assiduity, obtain a livelihood. After some time he sent letters to them, to command their return to their own country; and they returned accordingly. One of the brothers rejoiced at this, and was received with equal pleasure. He was, moreover, put in possession of a fair inheritance. But the other was much distressed at his recall. When his mother ran out to meet him, she ​kissed him, and while doing so bit off his lips. His sister, also, following the mother's example, bit off his nose. His brother also put out his eyes; and the father, entering, caught him by the hair of his head and flayed him alive.
APPLICATION.
My beloved, the rich lord is God, and the two sons are soul and body; the latter of which is unwilling to return to its native earth. The sister and brothers are toads and serpents, who devour the nose, eyes, &c.
# Gesta Romanorum (1905)/Of the Poison of Sin

TALE XI.
OF THE POISON OF SIN.
Alexander was a prince of great power, and a disciple of Aristotle, who instructed him in every branch of learning. The Queen of the North having heard of his proficiency, nourished her daughter from the cradle upon a certain kind of deadly poison; and when she grew up, she was considered so beautiful, that the sight of her alone affected many with madness. The queen sent her to Alexander to espouse. He had no sooner beheld her, than he became violently enamoured, and with much eagerness desired to possess her; but Aristotle observing his weakness, said—"Do not touch her, for if you do, you will certainly perish. She has been nurtured upon the most deleterious food, which I will prove to you immediately. Here is a malefactor, who is already condemned to death. He shall be imited to her, and you will soon see the truth of what I advance." Accordingly the culprit was brought without delay to the girl; and scarcely had he touched her lips, before his whole frame was impregnated with poison, and he expired. Alexander, glad at his escape from such imminent destruction, bestowed all thanks on his instructor, and returned the girl to her mother.
APPLICATION.
My beloved, any good Christian strong and powerful in virtues communicated at his baptism, may be called Alexander. He is strong and powerful as long as he preserves his purity from the contamination of the devil, the world, and the flesh. The Queen of the North is a superfluity of the things of life, which sometimes destroys the spirit, and generally the body. The envenomed beauty is Luxury and Gluttony, which feed men with delicacies, that are poison to the soul. Aristotle is thy conscience, or reason, which reproves and opposes the union that would undo the soul. The malefactor is a perverse man, disobedient to his God, and more diligent in pursuing his own carnal delights than the divine commands. He enfolds his sins in a close embrace, by whose deadly touch he is spiritually destroyed. So the Book of Wisdom: "He who touches pitch shall be defiled by it." Let us then study to live honestly and uprightly, in order that we may attain to everlasting life.
# Gesta Romanorum (1905)/Of the Soul's Immortality

TALE CLVIII.
OF THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY.
There was once discovered at Rome an uncorrupted body, taller than the wall of the city, on which the following words were inscribed:—"Pallas, the son of Evander. whom the lance of a crooked soldier slew, is interred here." A candle burned at his head, which neither water nor wind could extinguish, until air was admitted through a hole made with the point of a needle beneath the flame. The wound of which this giant had died was four feet and a half long. Having been killed after the overthrow of Troy, he had remained in his tomb two thousand two hundred and forty years.
APPLICATION.
My beloved, the giant is Adam, who was formed free from all corruption. The wound of which he died is transgression of the divine command. The burning candle is eternal punishment, extinguished by means of a needle—that is, by the passion of Christ.
# Gesta Romanorum Vol. II (1871)/Of Christ's Clemency

TALE LVII.
OF CHRIST'S CLEMENCY.
In the chronicles of Eusebius we read of an emperor who governed the Roman people with the greatest equity, sparing none, whether rich or poor; but measuring the punishment according to the extent of the crime. The factious senators however deposed him; and expelled every poor person from the kingdom. Immediately he fled to Constantine, and entering into a close compact with him, on all occasions, conducted himself so boldly and prudently that he succeeded him to the sovereignty of the empire. Then assembling an army, he besieged the city of Rome; and so vigilantly did he watch the motions of the Roman people, that both ingress and egress were equally precluded. By this means, ​the city being reduced to the most deplorable situation, the people sent out to him their senators, and young men and women, with their feet bare, who prostrated themselves before him, and humbly requested the forgiveness which he refused to grant. At length they despatched his parents, who were resident in the city, upon this embassy. His mother wept and intreated; conjuring him by the breasts which he had sucked, to spare the place of his nativity. Unable to resist the force of natural affection, he pardoned on her account their offences. He then marched into the city, and was honourably entertained.
APPLICATION.
My beloved, the emperor is Christ; the city is the human heart, from which he is expelled; Constantine is God; the senators, &c. are the prophets, and patriarchs, and apostles.
# Heirs of General Lafayette v. Kenton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 197
Heirs of General Lafayette v. Kenton
THESE cases were brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States, for the eastern district of Louisiana.
They were argued by Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Janin, for defendants.
The arguments of counsel were so connected with the maps which were produced in court, that it would be difficult to present to the reader a clear explanation of them without the map.
Mr. Justice CATRON 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
# Heirs of De La Lande v. Treasurer of the State of Louisiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 1
Heirs of De La Lande v. Treasurer of the State of Louisiana
THIS case was brought up from the supreme court of the State of Louisiana, by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.
Mr. Dunbar moved the court to allow him to strike out his appearance for the State of Louisiana; and further moved the court to dismiss the case, on the ground that no process had been issued against, or served on, the chief executive magistrate and attorney-general of the State of Louisiana, under the 10th rule of this court.
Mr. Janin opposed the motion.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# Grunenthal v. Long Island Railroad Company/Dissent Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Harlan Stewart
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 156
Grunenthal v. Long Island Railroad Company
Argued: Oct. 24, 1968. --- Decided: Nov 18, 1968
Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
I think it clear that the only issue which might conceivably justify the presence of this case in this Court is whether a United States Court of Appeals may constitutionally review the refusal of a district court to set aside a verdict for excessiveness. The Court purports not to decide that question, preferring to rest its decision upon the alleged correctness of the District Court's action in the circumstances of this case. Like my Brother STEWART, I am at an utter loss to understand how the Court manages to review the District Court's decision and find it proper while at the same time proclaiming that it has avoided decision of the issue whether appellate courts ever may review such actions.
Even assuming that this feat of legal gymnastics has been successfully performed, I believe that the correctness of this particular District Court decision, a matter whose proper resolution depends upon a detailed examination of the trial record and which possesses little if any general significance, is not a suitable issue for this Court. Accordingly, I think it appropriate to vote to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, even though the case formally is here on an unlimited writ. See my dissenting opinion in Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 454, 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1178, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968). To the extent that this position is inconsistent with my having joined the per curiam opinion in Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60 (1955), in which the Court adopted a course similar to that followed today, I feel bound frankly to say that the incongruity of today's decision brings me face-to-face with the question whether that earlier disposition was correct, and that I now believe it to have been wrong. Since the Court professes not to reach the constitutional issue in this case, I consider it inappropriate for me, as an individual Justice, to express my opinion on it.

## 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
# Gryger v. Burke

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Rutledge
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 728
Gryger v. Burke
Argued: April 26, 27, 1948. --- Decided: June 14, 1948
Mr. Archibald Cox, of Cambridge, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. Franklin E. Barr, of Philadelphia, Pa., 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
# Grunewald v. United States (352 U.S. 866)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 866
Grunewald v. United States

## 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
# Grunewald v. United States (353 U.S. 391)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 391
Grunewald v. United States
Argued: April 3 and 4, 1957. --- Decided: May 27, 1957
[Syllabus from pages 391-392 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Edward J. Bennett, New York City, for petitioner grunewald.
Mr. Henry G. Singer, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner Halperin.
Mr. Rudolph Stand, New York City, for petitioner Bolich.
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the respondent in all three cases.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Grunewald v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Grunewald v. United States."
* 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.
* Grunewald v. United States (352 U.S. 866)
* Grunewald v. United States (353 U.S. 391)
# Harper v. Butler/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
This is an action of debt brought by the plaintiff in error, in the court of the United States for the district of Mississippi, as the assignee of Henry Clay, executor of James Morrison deceased. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that the will of James Morrison had not been proved or recorded in the state of Mississippi, nor had letters testamentary therein been granted to Henry Clay the executor. To this plea there was a replication, which set out the probate of the will in the state of Kentucky, the letters testamentary to the executor, and the assignment, in the state of Kentucky, of the note on which the action was brought to the plaintiff in error. To this replication the defendant demurred. The court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff has sued out this writ of error.
The district court proceeded on the idea that the executor could not transfer a chose in action in Kentucky, because the obligor did not reside in that state. This court supposes the law to be otherwise. The assignment in Kentucky could not enable the assignee to sue in the courts of Mississippi, unless the law of the court authorized an assignee to sue in his own name. But since this is permitted in the courts of Mississippi, the plea in abatement cannot be sustained.
The judgment is reversed, and the causes remanded to the district court with directions to over-rule the demurrer.

## 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
# Harper v. Butler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
27 U.S. 239
Harper v. Butler
ERROR to the district court of the United States for the district of Kentucky.
The only question submitted to the court was, whether the assignee of a chose in action, assigned by an executor in the state where he had proved the will and taken out letters testamentary, where the debt was contracted, and where the testator lived and died; could maintain an action in another state, without a new probate and new letters testamentary taken out in the state in which the action was brought.
The question arose on the demurrer of the defendant to the plaintiff's replication, setting out the probate, letters testamentary, assignment, &c. The district court sustained the demurrer and decided against the plaintiff's right of action.
The causes of demurrer shown by the defendant in error, were:
1. That the replication does not allege and set forth that the will of the testator was proved, and that letters testamentary were granted to the executor in the state of Mississippi.
2. That the replication does not show that the will of the testator was proved, and probate thereof granted to the executor or any other person within the jurisdiction of the court; nor that it was granted by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
Mr. Jones, for the plaintiff, contended that the assignment being consummate in the jurisdiction where the executor's authority was indisputable, operated a complete transfer of the chose in action there; and carried with it a right of action every where; to which no new probate, or letters testamentary, could have added any validity whatsoever.
No counsel appeared for the defendant.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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
# Harper v. Maverick Recording Co.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
(slip opinion - see disclaimer)

## Dissenting Opinion

    Alito
Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2010)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WHITNEY HARPER v. MAVERICK RECORDING COMPANY ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
| | The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows: |
| The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx) ||
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
# Harper's Weekly/“And, Mother! Draw it Mild!”

From Harper's Weekly, October 27, 1866, p. 675.
“AND, MOTHER! DRAW IT MILD!”
Carl Schurz took the liberty of observing that the freedmen universally celebrated the last Fourth of July while the late rebels did not. Thereupon the Fayetteville Observer, in Lincoln Country, Kentucky, remarks:
   “Is that any of your business, you squash-headed, flop-eared, beer-swilling, garlic-eating, negro-loving, German convict? What do you know about the South, or the Fourth of July either? We loved our country, and always celebrated the anniversary of its independence in a becoming manner until it was overrun by several millions of foreign thieves and cut-throats like yourself, whose votes were bought up by Northern demagogues at a pint of lager beer each.”
The gentle Observer is, of course, a warm friend of “conciliation” and “magnanimity,” and has no patience with an “unconstitutional Congress,” which suggests that rebellion shall not be rewarded with increased political power.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Hemans Miscellaneous Poetry 3/To Miss F. A. L. On her Birthday

TO MISS F. A. L. ON HER BIRTH-DAY.
What Wish can Friendship form for thee,  What brighter star invoke to shine?— Thy path from every thorn is free,  And every rose is thine!
Life hath no purer joy in store,  Time hath no sorrow to efface; Hope cannot paint one blessing more  Than memory can retrace!
Some hearts a boding fear might own,  Had Fate to them thy portion given, Since many an eye, by tears alone,  Is taught to gaze on heaven!
And there are virtues oft conceal'd,  Till roused by anguish from repose; As odorous trees no balm will yield,  Till from their wounds it flows.
But fear not thou, the lesson fraught  With Sorrow's chastening power to know; Thou need'st not thus be sternly taught  "To melt at others' woe."
Then still, with heart as blest, as warm,  Rejoice thou in thy lot on earth; Ah! why should Virtue dread the storm,  If sunbeams prove her worth?
# Hemans Miscellaneous Poetry 3/To Venus

TRANSLATIONS FROM HORACE.
TO VENUS.
BOOK I., ODE XXX.
Oh! leave thine own loved isle, Bright Queen of Cyprus and the Paphian shores!  And here in Glycera's fair temple smile, Where vows and incense lavishly she pours.
 Waft here thy glowing son; Bring Hermes; let the Nymphs thy path surround,  And youth, unlovely till thy gifts be won, And the light Graces with the zone unbound.
# Hemans Miscellaneous Poetry 3/Written on the First Leaf of an Album of the Same

Follows 'To Miss F. A. L. On her Birthday'
WRITTEN ON THE FIRST LEAF OF THE ALBUM OF THE SAME.
What first should consecrate as thine,  The volume, destined to be fraught With many a sweet and playful line,  With many a pure and pious thought?
It should be, what a loftier strain  Perchance less meetly would impart; What never yet was pour'd in vain,—  The blessing of a grateful heart—
For kindness, which hath soothed the hour  Of anxious grief, of weary pain, And oft, with its beguiling power,  Taught languid Hope to smile again.
Long shall that fervent blessing rest  On thee and thine; and, heavenwards borne, Call down such peace to soothe thy breast,  As thou, wouldst bear to all that mourn.
# Hemans Miscellaneous Poetry 3/Rest on your Battle-field, ye brave!

A FRAGMENT.
Rest on your battle-fields, ye brave! Let the pines murmur o'er your grave, Your dirge be in the moaning wave—  We call you back no more!
Oh! there was mourning when ye fell, In your own vales a deep-toned knell, An agony, a wild farewell—  But that hath long been o'er.
Rest with your still and solemn fame; The hills keep record of your name, And never can a touch of shame  Darken the buried brow.
But we on changeful days are cast, When bright names from their place fall fast; And ye that with your glory pass'd,  We cannot mourn you now.
# Hemans Miscellaneous Poetry 3/To Delius

TO DELIUS.
BOOK II., ODE III.
Firm be thy soul!—serene in power.
 When adverse Fortune clouds the sky;
Undazzled by the triumph's hour,
 Since, Delius, thou must die!—
Alike, if still to grief resign'd,  Or if, through festal days, 'tis thine To quaff, in grassy haunts reclined.
 The old Falernian wine—
Haunts where the silvery poplar-boughs
 Love with the pine's to blend on high,
And some clear fountain brightly flows
 In graceful windings by.
There be the rose with beauty fraught
 So soon to fade, so brilliant now;
There be the wine, the odours brought,
 While time and fate allow!
For thou, resigning to thine heir  Thy halls, thy bowers, thy treasured store, Must leave that home, those woodlands fair,
 On yellow Tiber's shore.
What then avails it, if thou trace
 From Inachus thy glorious line? Or, sprung from some ignoble race
 If not a roof be thine?
Since the dread lot for all must leap  Forth from the dark revolving urn, And we must tempt the gloomy deep,  Whence exiles ne'er return.
# Hemans Miscellaneous Poetry 3/To the Fountain of Bandusia

TO THE FOUNTAIN OF BANDUSIA.
BOOK III, ODE XIII.
Oh! worthy fragrant gifts of flowers and wine,
 Bandusian fount, than crystal far more bright! To-morrow shall a sportive kid be thine,
 Whose forehead swells with horns of infant might: Ev'n now of love and war he dreams in vain, Doom'd with his blood thy gelid wave to stain.
Let the red dog-star burn!—his scorching beam,
 Fierce in resplendence shall molest not thee! Still shelter'd from his rays, thy banks, fair stream!  To the wild flock around thee wandering free, And the tired oxen from the furrow'd field, The genial freshness of their breath shall yield.
And thou, bright fount! ennobled and renown'd,  Shalt by thy poet's votive song be made;
Thou and the oak with deathless verdure crown'd.
 Whose boughs, a pendant canopy, o'ershade
Those hollow rocks, whence, murmuring many a tale Thy chiming waters pour upon the vale.