OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Memorandum Circular No. 162 (GMA)

* information about this edition.
* related portals: Philippines.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
MALACAÑANG
MANILA
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 162
GUIDELINES ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO NORTH BORNEO (SABAH)
WHEREAS, by virtue of Article 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on National Territory, the Philippines has historical and legal right over certain parts of North Borneo (Sabah);
WHEREAS, it is in the national interest to safeguard the country’s historical and legal right in North Borneo (Sabah);
WHEREAS, the Philippines believes in the peaceful resolution of disputes with neighboring countries as provided under the same Constitution, which expressly states that the Philippines adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations;
WHEREAS, there is a need for guidelines with regard to activities, acts or statements in relation to North Borneo (Sabah) for the protection of the said rights;
WHEREFORE, the following guidelines are hereby prescribed:
Section 1. No Department, agency, or instrumentality of the Philippine Government shall make any act or statement expressing or implying, directly or indirectly, any recognition of a foreign state’s sovereignty over North Borneo (Sabah) or non-recognition of Philippine title or historical and legal rights to the same.
Section 2. Any official activity, act or statement relating to North Borneo (Sabah) or which may have bearing on the Philippine claim to said territory shall be carried out only with the clearance of or after consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Section 3. Reference to North Borneo (Sabah) in official documents should not include its being part of a larger national/federal territory. These documents include, but are not limited to, the following: Philippine passports, agreement, agreed minutes, joint communiqués, record of discussions, and similar documents.
Section 4. Philippine government officials visiting North Borneo (Sabah) shall provide the DFA with a report on their travel thereto.
This Circular shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 20th day of August, in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Eight.
By authority of the President:
(Signed)
EDUARDO R. ERMITA Executive Secretary
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Ohio Valley Tie Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 288
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Ohio Valley Tie Company
Argued: November 3 and 6, 1916. --- Decided: December 18, 1916
Messrs. Helm Bruce and Henry L. Stone for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Edward W. Hines, John Bryce Baskin, and J. V. Norman for defendant in error.
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
# Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Parker/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 13
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Parker
Argued: November 1, 1916. --- Decided: November 13 1916
The plaintiff's intestate was a fireman upon a switching engine which was moving upon a switch track. A caboose stood upon the main track so near to where the engine moved that the deceased struck it and was killed. His administrator brought this action against the railroad, the plaintiff in error, for causing the intestate's death, and got a verdict, which, it is admitted, cannot be sustained if the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce. The dealings of the state courts with that question are the ground for the present writ of error. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the court of appeals. 165 Ky. 658, 177 S. W. 465.
The business upon which the deceased was engaged at the moment was transferring an empty car from one switch track to another. This car was not moving in interstate commerce, and that fact was treated as conclusive by the court of appeals. In this the court was in error, for if, as there was strong evidence to show, and as the court seemed to assume, this movement was simply for the purpose of reaching and moving an interstate car, the purpose would control and the business would be interstate. The difference is marked between a mere expectation that the act done would be followed by other work of a different character, as in Illinois C. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 478, 58 L. ed. 1051, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, 10 N. C. C. A. 153, and doing the act for the purpose of furthering the later work. See New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260, 263, 59 L. ed. 1298, 1299, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780, 9 N. C. C. A. 1; Pennsylvania Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 60 L. ed. 139, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4; Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. 222 U.S. 55, 62, 63, 56 L. ed. 92, 95, 96, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1285.
But it is necessary to see how the case was dealt with in the trial court. The railroad company did not ask to go to the jury on the question whether the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce. It simply asked the court to direct a verdict, on the ground, among others, that it appeared as matter of law that he was so engaged. But if the question had been left to the jury, and they had disbelieved the testimony that the empty car was moved for the ulterior purpose of interstate commerce, there would have been no error of law in allowing a verdict for the plaintiff to stand. It is true that the judge seems to have assumed that the business in hand was intrastate, but the only objection indicated was to his not ruling the contrary; and, as the railroad did not ask to go to the jury, and the only ruling requested was properly denied, the judgment must stand.
Judgment affirmed.

## 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
# Louisville Bridge Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 409
Louisville Bridge Company v. United States
Argued: December 8 and 11, 1916. --- Decided: January 8, 1917
Messrs. William W. Crawford, Lawrence Maxwell, and Charles H. Gibson for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 410-413 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Wallace for appellee.
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Parker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 13
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Parker
Argued: November 1, 1916. --- Decided: November 13 1916
Mr. Benjamin D. Warfield for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Edward C. O'Rear, J. M. Robsion, and B. G. Williams for defendant in error.
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
# Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
238 U.S. 1
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. United States
Argued: March 1, 1915. --- Decided: June 1, 1915
[Syllabus from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. William A. Colston, Henry L. Stone, Claude Waller, John B. Keeble, and William A. Northcutt for appellants.
Solicitor General Davis for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 3-7 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Charles W. Needham for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Messrs. A. G. Ewing, Jr., and T. J. McMorrough for the Traffic Bureau of Nashville.
[Argument of Counsel from page 8 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Lamar 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
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barlow, Alexander Robert Pratt

​Barlow, Alexander Robert Pratt, B.A. Christ Church, Oxon, a student of Lincoln's Inn 19 Jan., 1861 (then aged 22), called to the bar 30 April, 1864 (eldest son of James Pratt Barlow, Esq., of London); born 1 May, 1838 (see Foster's Baronetage)
    123, Sloane Street, S.W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barlow, Algernon

​Barlow, Algernon, B.A., Trin. Hall, Camb., 1878, equity draftsman and conveyancer, a student of Lincoln's Inn 8 Feb., 1876 (then aged 20), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1879 (eldest son of Rev. John Mount Barlow, rector of Ewhurst, Surrey); born , 1856.
    9, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barlow, Francis

​Barlow, Francis, M.A. (late fellow), Trin. Hall, Camb., 1824, hon. commissioner in lunacy since 1879, master and commissioner in lunacy 1842-79, deputy high steward Camb. Univ. since 1856, secretary of presentations to Lord Lyndhurst (lord chancellor 1841-2), a student of the Middle Temple 20 June, 1820, called to the bar there 11 Nov., 1825, admitted a barrister of Lincoln's Inn ad eundem 9 Jan., 1837 (eldest son of Rev. George Francis Barlow, of Burgh, Suffolk); born 26 Jan., 1799.
    48, Montagu Square, W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barnard, William (b.1856)

​Barnard, William, M.A., Trin. Coll, Camb., 1882, LL.B. 1881, a student of the Inner Temple 27 April, 1880 (then aged 24), called to the bar 18 April, 1883 (eldest son of late William Barnard, of High Laver Hill, Harlow, Essex); born , 1856.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barlow, William Wycliffe

​Barlow, William Wycliffe, M.A. St. John's Coll., Camb., a member of the Northern circuit 1883, a student of Lincoln's Inn 24 July, 1875 (aged 21), called to the bar 6 June, 1883 (eldest son of William Barlow, Esq., of Wilmslow, Cheshire); born 18 March, 1854; married 23 April, 1884, Emily, 2nd dau. of James Jardine, Esq., J.P., of Alderley Edge.
    Ashford, Wilmslow, Cheshire; Atherton Grange, Wimbledon Park, S.W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barlow, John Emmott

​Barlow, John Emmott, matric. London Univ. 1877, a student of the Inner Temple 2 Nov., 1880 (then aged 23), called to the bar 7 May, 1884 (eldest son of Thomas Barlow, of Stockport, merchant); born 16 April, 1857.
    Torkington Lodge, near Stockport.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barlow, William Henry

​Barlow, William Henry, a student of the Middle Temple 2 Nov., 1874, called to the bar 13 June, 1877 (eldest son of William Henry Barlow, C.E., of High Combe, Old Charlton, Kent); born , .
    High Combe, Old Charlton, Kent.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barnard, Charles Edward Gee

​Barnard, Charles Edward Gee, J.P. Yorks East Riding, a student of the Middle Temple 12 April, 1842, called to the bar 5 Nov., 1847 (only son of Rev. Edward William Barnard, of Brantingham Thorpe, Yorkshire, dec.); born 23 March, 1822; married 5 June, 1862, Sophia Letitia, dau. of late Hon. Andrew Godfrey Stuart (see Foster's Peerage, E. Castlestuart), and has issue.
    Cave Castle, near Brough, Yorkshire.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barnard, Frederick James

​Barnard, Frederick James, practises before the High Court at Calcutta, a student of the Middle Temple 18 April, 1861, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1864 (only son of Thomas Barnard, of Northampton); born , ; married 2 Sept., 1873, Elizabeth Alicia Jane, eldest dau. of late Dr. Bennett Lucas, F.R.C.S.E.
    Calcutta.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Barnard, William (b.?)

​Barnard, William, a member of the South-eastern circuit, a student of Gray's Inn 28 Jan., 1859, called to the bar 11 June, 1862, admitted a barrister of the Middle Temple ad eundem 29 Oct., 1868 (2nd son of William Barnard, of Sawbridgeworth, Herts, maltster); born , .
    10, Gray's Inn Place, W.C.
# Mary: A Fiction/Chapter XII

The physician was sent for; his prescription afforded Ann a little temporary relief; and they again joined the circle. Unfortunately, the weather happened to be constantly wet for more than a week, and confined them to the house. Ann then found the ladies not so agreeable; when they sat whole hours together, the thread-bare topics were exhausted; and, but for cards or music, the long evenings would have been yawned away in listless indolence.
The bad weather had had as ill an effect on Henry as on Ann. He was frequently very thoughtful, or rather melancholy; this melancholy would of itself have attracted Mary's notice, if she had not found his conversation so infinitely superior to the rest of the group. When she conversed with him, all the faculties of her soul unfolded themselves; genius animated her expressive countenance and the most graceful, unaffected gestures gave energy to her discourse.
They frequently discussed very important subjects, while the rest were singing or playing cards, nor were they observed for doing so, as Henry, whom they all were pleased with, in the way of gallantry shewed them all more attention than her. Besides, as there was nothing alluring in her dress or manner, they never dreamt of her being preferred to them.
Henry was a man of learning; he had also studied mankind, and knew many of the intricacies of the human heart, from having felt the infirmities of his own. His taste was just, as it had a standard--Nature, which he observed with a critical eye. Mary could not help thinking that in his company her mind expanded, as he always went below the surface. She increased her stock of ideas, and her taste was improved.
He was also a pious man; his rational religious sentiments received warmth from his sensibility; and, except on very particular occasions, kept it in proper bounds; these sentiments had likewise formed his temper; he was gentle, and easily to be intreated. The ridiculous ceremonies they were every day witness to, led them into what are termed grave subjects, and made him explain his opinions, which, at other times, he was neither ashamed of, nor unnecessarily brought forward to notice.
# Mary: A Fiction/Chapter VII

It was the will of Providence that Mary should experience almost every species of sorrow. Her father was thrown from his horse, when his blood was in a very inflammatory state, and the bruises were very dangerous; his recovery was not expected by the physical tribe.
Terrified at seeing him so near death, and yet so ill prepared for it, his daughter sat by his bed, oppressed by the keenest anguish, which her piety increased.
Her grief had nothing selfish in it; he was not a friend or protector; but he was her father, an unhappy wretch, going into eternity, depraved and thoughtless. Could a life of sensuality be a preparation for a peaceful death? Thus meditating, she passed the still midnight hour by his bedside.
The nurse fell asleep, nor did a violent thunder storm interrupt her repose, though it made the night appear still more terrific to Mary. Her father's unequal breathing alarmed her, when she heard a long drawn breath, she feared it was his last, and watching for another, a dreadful peal of thunder struck her ears. Considering the separation of the soul and body, this night seemed sadly solemn, and the hours long.
Death is indeed a king of terrors when he attacks the vicious man! The compassionate heart finds not any comfort; but dreads an eternal separation. No transporting greetings are anticipated, when the survivors also shall have finished their course; but all is black!--the grave may truly be said to receive the departed--this is the sting of death!
Night after night Mary watched, and this excessive fatigue impaired her own health, but had a worse effect on Ann; though she constantly went to bed, she could not rest; a number of uneasy thoughts obtruded themselves; and apprehensions about Mary, whom she loved as well as her exhausted heart could love, harassed her mind. After a sleepless, feverish night she had a violent fit of coughing, and burst a blood-vessel. The physician, who was in the house, was sent for, and when he left the patient, Mary, with an authoritative voice, insisted on knowing his real opinion. Reluctantly he gave it, that her friend was in a critical state; and if she passed the approaching winter in England, he imagined she would die in the spring; a season fatal to consumptive disorders. The spring!--Her husband was then expected.--Gracious Heaven, could she bear all this.
In a few days her father breathed his last. The horrid sensations his death occasioned were too poignant to be durable: and Ann's danger, and her own situation, made Mary deliberate what mode of conduct she should pursue. She feared this event might hasten the return of her husband, and prevent her putting into execution a plan she had determined on. It was to accompany Ann to a more salubrious climate.
# Mary: A Fiction/Chapter VIII

I mentioned before, that Mary had never had any particular attachment, to give rise to the disgust that daily gained ground. Her friendship for Ann occupied her heart, and resembled a passion. She had had, indeed, several transient likings; but they did not amount to love. The society of men of genius delighted her, and improved her faculties. With beings of this class she did not often meet; it is a rare genus; her first favourites were men past the meridian of life, and of a philosophic turn.
Determined on going to the South of France, or Lisbon; she wrote to the man she had promised to obey. The physicians had said change of air was necessary for her as well as her friend. She mentioned this, and added, "Her comfort, almost her existence, depended on the recovery of the invalid she wished to attend; and that should she neglect to follow the medical advice she had received, she should never forgive herself, or those who endeavoured to prevent her." Full of her design, she wrote with more than usual freedom; and this letter was like most of her others, a transcript of her heart.
"This dear friend," she exclaimed, "I love for her agreeable qualities, and substantial virtues. Continual attention to her health, and the tender office of a nurse, have created an affection very like a maternal one--I am her only support, she leans on me--could I forsake the forsaken, and break the bruised reed--No--I would die first! I must--I will go."
She would have added, "you would very much oblige me by consenting;" but her heart revolted--and irresolutely she wrote something about wishing him happy.--"Do I not wish all the world well?" she cried, as she subscribed her name--It was blotted, the letter sealed in a hurry, and sent out of her sight; and she began to prepare for her journey.
By the return of the post she received an answer; it contained some common-place remarks on her romantic friendship, as he termed it; "But as the physicians advised change of air, he had no objection."
# Mary: A Fiction/Chapter X

Every day almost they saw their new acquaintance; and civility produced intimacy. Mary sometimes left her friend with them; while she indulged herself in viewing new modes of life, and searching out the causes which produced them. She had a metaphysical turn, which inclined her to reflect on every object that passed by her; and her mind was not like a mirror, which receives every floating image, but does not retain them: she had not any prejudices, for every opinion was examined before it was adopted.
The Roman Catholic ceremonies attracted her attention, and gave rise to conversations when they all met; and one of the gentlemen continually introduced deistical notions, when he ridiculed the pageantry they all were surprised at observing. Mary thought of both the subjects, the Romish tenets, and the deistical doubts; and though not a sceptic, thought it right to examine the evidence on which her faith was built. She read Butler's Analogy, and some other authors: and these researches made her a christian from conviction, and she learned charity, particularly with respect to sectaries; saw that apparently good and solid arguments might take their rise from different points of view; and she rejoiced to find that those she should not concur with had some reason on their side.
# Manigault v. Springs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
199 U.S. 473
Manigault v. Springs
Argued: November 2, 1905. --- Decided: December 4, 1905
This was a bill in equity filed March 4, 1903, by Manigault, to enjoin the damming or otherwise obstructing Kinloch creek, in the county of Georgetown, South Carolina. A demurrer to the bill was sustained, and the bill subsequently dismissed. See 123 Fed. 707.
It seems that, in 1898, the plaintiff and the two defendants, Springs and Lachicotte, together with one Ford, were adjoining riparian owners on the Santee river, at the mouth of Kinloch creek. The creek furnished access as a highway to all the proprietors on its banks. At that time the defendants constructed a dam across the creek for their own purposes. Objection was made to this by plaintiff and by Ford as an interference with their rights of passage and irrigation. Plaintiff also complained that the effect was to compel him to raise the dikes around his lands. As a result of long negotiations, a compromise was effected and a contract entered into in August, 1898, between defendants under the name of S. M. Ward & Company, of the first part, and plaintiff and Ford, of the second part, whereby it was agreed that the obstructions should continue until December 31 of that year, when they should be removed, so as to give the parties complaining a clear passage through the creek.
This removal was effected and matters allowed to remain as they were until 1903, when the general assembly of the state passed an act reciting the necessity of draining the lowlands on the Santee river, whereby their taxable value would be greatly enhanced. Authority was given to the defendants by name to erect and maintain a dam across Kinloch creek, with a proviso that they should be liable for all such damages as might be established in any court of competent jurisdiction by any landowner claiming that his land had been damaged by reason of the erection of the dam.
Mr. Henry A. M. Smith for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 474-477 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Theodore G. Barker for appellees.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:
Mr. Justice Brown 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