OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Mackey v. United States (401 U.S. 667)/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 667
Mackey v. United States (401 U.S. 667)
Argued: Oct. 21, 1970. --- Decided: April 5, 1971
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
I had assumed that all criminal and civil decisions involving constitutional defenses which go in favor of the defendant were necessarily retroactive. That is to say, the Constitution has from Chief Justice Jay's time been retroactive, for there were no decisions on the points prior thereto. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, exonerated defendants who, when they failed to file returns, were not by reason of United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754, entitled to a constitutional immunity. Why Marchetti and Grosso are entitled to relief and Mackey is not, is a mystery. It is said that Mackey's gambling return, 'like physical evidence seized in violation of a new interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, is concededly relevant and probative even though obtained by the Government through means since defined by this Court as constitutionally objectionable.' The same could be said of Marchetti and Crosso. Yet their convictions were reversed.
I could understand today's decision if Marchetti and Grosso had announced only a prospective rule applicable to all like defendants. But when the defendants in those cases are given the benefit of a new constitutional rule forged by the Court, it is not comprehensible, if justice rather than the fortuitous circumstances of the time of the trial is the standard, why all victims of the old unconstitutional rule should not be treated equally.
I can find nothing in the Constitution that authorizes some constitutional rules to be prospective and others to be retroactive. The majority often says the test is whether a new rule affects the integrity of the factfinding process, Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248. Yet even that test is not applied when the majority thinks that the impact of the new rule, if applied with due regard to the Equal Protection Clause, would be 'devastating.' Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 419, 86 S.Ct. 459, 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 453. The Constitution grants this Court no such legislative powers.
My views have been expressed in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 640, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1743, 14 L.Ed.2d 601, and Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 736, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, and I adhere to them. I would continue to construe all constitutional safeguards 'strictly.'

## 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
# Marshall v. Beverley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
18 U.S. 313
Marshall v. Beverley
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Virginia.
Carter Beverley, being indebted to the appellant, Horace Marshall, assigned to him several bills of exchange, amounting, in the aggregate, to 900l. sterling, which had been drawn by the respondent, Peter R. Beverley, on Bird Beverley, of London, in favour of the said Carter Beverley. These bills were severally transferred, for valuable consideration, by the appellant, to Luke Tiernan & Co., Stewart Montgomery & Co., Jesse Eichelberger & Co., and Cornelius and John Comegys; and having been forwarded by them to London for payment, were protested for non-acceptance and non-payment, and so returned. Suits were instituted by these parties against Peter R. Beverley, on which he confessed judgments. Having been taken in execution and imprisoned, he gave bond for the prison bounds, which he broke. A second series of suits were brought on the prison bounds bonds, after judgments on which, he filed the present bill against Horace Marshall, Carter Beverley, Luke Tiernan & Co., Stewart Montgomery & Co., Jesse Eichelberger & Co., Cornelius and John Cornegys, and John Brown, charging usury in the transactions between Carter Beverley and Horace Marshall, and a fraudulent sale of certain slaves of Carter Beverley, on which Horace Marshall retained a collateral security for his debt; and charging, also, that although the suits were in the name of Luke Tiernan and others, (to whom the bills and been transferred,) they were, in fact, for the complainant's benefit, he having paid to his endorser what was due on those bills. On these grounds, a perpetual injunction was prayed for and awarded. The appellant, by his answer, admitted the last allegation; but denied the usury, and insisted that the sales of Carter Beverley's negroes had been made in strict conformity with the deed of trust under which they were sold. None of the other defendants answered the bill.
This cause was argued by the Attorney-General, for the appellant, and by Mr. Jones and Mr. Taylor, for the respondent.
Mr. Justice LIVINGSTON 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
# Marshall v. Brucker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
356 U.S. 24
Marshall v. Brucker
Charles W. Marshall, pro se.
Solicitor General Rankin, for respondent.
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
# Marshall v. Burtis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
172 U.S. 630
Marshall v. Burtis
L. E. Payson, for appellant.
A. H. Garland and R. C. Garland, for appellee.
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
# Marshall v. Beall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
47 U.S. 70
Marshall v. Beall

## 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
# Marshall v. Brucker/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
356 U.S. 24
Marshall v. Brucker
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for appropriate relief in the light of Harmon v. Brucker (Abramowitz v. Brucker) 355 U.S. 579, 78 S.Ct. 433.
Mr. CLARK dissents from this disposition of the case for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in these cases.

## 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
# Letters of a Javanese princess/Chapter 70

LXX
Rembang, March 6th, 1904.
MY Own Dearest Moedertjy:
I wish that I could throw my arms around your neck, I long from my soul to tell you of my great joy, to make you a sharer in our splendid secret. A great, sweet happiness awaits me. If Gods so wills it, toward the end of September, there will come one sent from heaven to make our beautiful life still more beautiful, to draw the bond closer and tighter that already binds us together. Mother, my mother, think of the little soul that will be bom from our two souls to call me mother.
Can you picture it? I a mother! I shall make you, old Moedertje, I shall make you a grandmother! Will you come later on to see your grandchild? I shall not be able now to go to Batavia. Our plan was first to go on a journey this month, to take a month's holiday. Now we must give up the idea. I am not able to travel, and when our little one is here, then, too, I may not travel. So I shall see Batavia no more, at least while you are there. And what would it be worth to me without you and Mijnheer? My husband is so glowingly happy because of this new life which I carry under my heart. That alone was wanting to our happiness.
# Letters of a Javanese princess/Chapter 73

LXXIII
Rembang, June 30, 1904.
WHEN shall I ever be able to write to you as of yore? From all sides come reproaches that I write so seldom. But I cannot do anything else; I have undertaken a great task, and it is my hard duty to carry it through to completion. The children are doing their best, and I have now twelve, among them several who are full-grown.
I am busy now with the outfit for your little grandchild. My sisters are eager for a girl, and my husband for a son. If it should be a girl, then I shall have to love her doubly, for every one here is anxious for a boy.
# Letters of a Javanese princess/Chapter 74

LXXIV
Rembang, July 17, 1904.
MY Own Dearest Moedertje:
My love for you and my interest in everything that concerns you must not be measured according to the number of my letters to you.
With the best will in the world, it is almost impossible for me to write to any one at all, now especially, when I am struggling against bad health. I have been quite sick: I caught a cold and suffered severely. That is now past, thank God! but I still have to take care of myself. And I must — I will be well, for our child's sake.
How much a child costs its mother! All the tedious suffering is still to come. Oh Moeska, I must take care of myself, and be prudent in everything. For a month past, I have only received members of the family, who can come into my room. I write this in a long chair. I cannot sit up straight comfortably.
Mamma was with me last week; the dear one, nothing is too much for her, where the welfare of her children is at stake. Just so she went to Pamalang when Kardinah was sick, and just so she came all the way here, when my husband in his distress telegraphed for her. My husband is looking forward to the approaching time with great apprehension. He cannot bear to see me suffer, poor dear one; he really suffered more than I when I was so sick. He would turn the whole world upside down to spare me suffering and pain.
# Letters of a Javanese princess/Chapter 76

LXXVI
Rembang, August 24, 1904.
DEAREST Moedertje Mine:
After all, that was not to be my last letter. I have been afraid; but perhaps it will be for the best that my time is coming quickly. I feel it, Moedertje; it is very probable that your grandchild will be bom sooner than we first expected him.
Greetings, my dear one. Think well of me, both of you; in my heart there is a prayer which says, “God keep my dear friends.”
Your own little daughter, Kartini.
# Letters of a Javanese princess/Chapter 75

LXXV
Rembang, August 10, 1904.
MOESKA Dearest:
I think of you so much! Above all do I think of you now, always with a feeling of tenderness, but at the same time, a deep sadness.
Sadness because you are so far from me, and will be even further removed beyond my reach. Why must it be that just those souls that are most closely akin should be separated so far from one another? I am so unhappy when I let myself long for you. I sit still, looking straight ahead, neither hearing nor seeing what is happening around me. I live in the past, that sweet and that bitter past, when I was so eager for suffering, and where your love is interwoven always like a garland of light. I suffered and I rejoiced. My heart is full of sadness, but also of gratitude, for the happiness which your love has brought me. I never cease to thank God for having brought you to us.
Why is it that the Javanese is so poor, they ask? And at the same time, they are thinking how they will be able to get more money out of him. Who will that money come from? Naturally from the little man for whose woe and weal we express such extreme concern that a whole commission is named to inquire into the cause of his retrogression; “What makes the Javanese so poor?” When grass-cutters who ​earn 10 or 12 cents a day are made to pay a trade tax. Every time a goat or a sheep is butchered a tax of twenty cents is paid. A Satee-merchant who butchers two every day, must pay this tax, which amounts to one hundred and forty-four florins in the course of a year. What is left for his profit? Barely enough to live on.
I learned much of this at my parents’ house, but here where my husband shares every thought with me, where I share his whole life, his work and his troubles, I have come to know of conditions of which I was not only in ignorance, but the very existence of which I did not dream. There is so much crying injustice, and he who loves righteousness and holds office, must suffer indeed. He must see much, and do much himself that is against all principles of right. ··········
Good-day, Moeska ; perhaps this will be my last letter to you. Think sometimes of your daughter who loves you and your husband so dearly, and who presses you now to her heart.
* ↑ To Mevrouw Abendanon.
* ↑ Satee is a dish composed of meat strung on a stick and roasted.
# Marsh v. Buck

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 406
Marsh v. Buck
Argued: April 29, 1941. --- Decided: May 26, 1941
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.
Messrs. Walter R. Johnson, Attorney Genera of Nebraska, John Riddell, Assistant to Attorney General, William J. Hotz, Special Assistant to Attorney General, Gordon Diesing and William F. Dalton, both of Omaha, Neb., assisting Wm. J. Hotz on brief, for appellants.
Messrs. Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N.J., and Louis D. Frohlich and Herman Finkelstein, both of New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Marsh v. Nichols

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 595
Marsh v. Nichols
[Statement of Case from pages 595-597 intentionally omitted]
E. J. Hill, for the motion.
R. A. Parker and Don M. Dickinson, in opposition.
WAITE, C. J.

## 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
# Marsh v. Nichols/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 595
Marsh v. Nichols
This motion is denied. The sole ground of the application is that since the appeal the supreme court of Michigan has, in a suit between the same parties, enjoined these appellants from making any claim against the appellee for the use of the patented invention which is the subject-matter of the suit, and has required them to release all the claims and demands which they have been prosecuting. Marsh and Le Fever oppose this motion, and Scott has no right to dismiss for them.

## 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
# Marsh v. Brooks (55 U.S. 513)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
55 U.S. 513
Marsh v. Brooks

## 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
# Marsh v. McPherson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 709
Marsh v. McPherson
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Jefferson H. Broady for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. John L. Webster for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS 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
# Mauprat (Heinemann)

The French edition was first published in 1837.
A LIBRARY OF FRENCH MASTERPIECES
EDITED BY EDMUND GOSSE, LL.D.
With Portrait-Notes by Octave Uzanne
* ENGLISH EDITION
* A Library of French Masterpieces
* EDITED BY EDMUND GOSSE
* Mauprat
* TRANSLATED FROM THE
* FRENCH OF
* George Sand
* WITH A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION BY
* JOHN OLIVER HOBBES
* ILLUSTRATED BY
* EUGÉNE PAUL AVRIL
* London: William Heinemann. MCMIV
* George Sand
* Biographical Note
* Prologue
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
* Chapter XXV
* Chapter XXVI
* Chapter XXVII
* Chapter XXVIII
* Chapter XXIX
* Chapter XXX
* The Portraits of George Sand
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
| Portrait of George Sand | Frontispiece | Frontispiece |
| COLOURED PLATES |||
| "In the twinkling of an eye all the Mauprats were at the portcullis" | To face page | 54 |
| "I took Edmée in my arms, and quietly walked through the stream" | „ | 116 |
| "Dead, dead!" said Patience. "And there is the murderer!" | „ | 324 |
| PORTRAITS OF GEORGE SAND |||
| | | Page |
| In 1860, from a photograph | In 1860, from a photograph | 419 |
| In 1832, from a lithograph by Jullien | In 1832, from a lithograph by Jullien | 420 |
| In male attire about 1830, from a drawing by Calamatta | In male attire about 1830, from a drawing by Calamatta | 421 |
| A medallion by David d'Angers, 1851 | A medallion by David d'Angers, 1851 | 421 |
| About 1838, from a lithograph by Aubert | About 1838, from a lithograph by Aubert | 422 |
| In 1840, engraved from a drawing by Nargeot | In 1840, engraved from a drawing by Nargeot | 423 |
| About 1848, after the picture by Couture | About 1848, after the picture by Couture | 423 |
| In 1869, from a photograph | In 1869, from a photograph | 424 |
| In 1866, from a lithograph by Lafosse | In 1866, from a lithograph by Lafosse | 424 |
| In 1870, photograph by Nadar | In 1870, photograph by Nadar | 425 |
This volume contains Three Coloured Plates after Water-colour Drawings by Eugéne Paul Avril.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Maul v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 501
Maul v. United States
Argued: Jan. 19, 20, 1927. --- Decided: May 31, 1927
Messrs. Nathan April, of New York City, and Howard M.
Long, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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/Aston, Theodore

​Aston, Theodore, Q.C. 1872, M.A., St. John's Coll., Camb., 1850, a member of the Northern circuit, a student of Lincoln's Inn 14 Nov., 1850 (then aged 23), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1853, bencher 8 May, 1872 (eldest son of Thomas Aston, Esq., of Handsworth, co. Stafford) ; born , 1827 ; married , 1865, Lucy, dau. of Richard Ashton, Esq., formerly of Broome Cross, Sheffield.
    Wellfield, Streatham, Surrey ; 11, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.; Junior Carlton Club.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Atkin, Peter Wilson

​Atkin, Peter Wilson, B.A. Jesus Coll., Camb., a student of the Inner Temple 12 Nov., 1879 (then aged 20), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1883 (2nd son of George Atkin, of Egerton Park, Rock Ferry, Cheshire); born , 1859.
    6, Pump Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Aston, Henry Faure

​Aston, Henry Faure, acting judge and sessions judge at Nasik 1 Jan., 1884, at Surat 1876-8, at Thana 1880-1, entered Indian C.S. 1869, assistant political agent Kattywar 1871 and acting judicial assistant 1878, acting under-secretary to Bombay Government in political, judicial, and educational departments and secretary to Legislative Council 1881-3, gold medallist South African Coll. 1864, a student of Lincoln's Inn 8 June, 1867 (then aged 20), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1884 (eldest son of Lt.-Col. Henry Aston, late Bombay army); born 20 Aug., 1846; married 25 Oct., 1873, Augusta Constance Alise, dau. of Col. Henry Creed, Bombay horse artillery, of Bucknalls, Herts, by his second wife, Cecilia Aurelia, eldest dau. of the Marquis de Bourbel.
    47, Oxford Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Athawes, Edward James

​Athawes, Edward James, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1862, from Winchester Coll., stipendiary magistrate for Chatham and Sheerness since 5 Dec, 1877, a student of Lincoln's Inn 24 May, 1857 (then aged 21), called to the bar there 17 Nov., 1860, admitted a barrister of the Middle Temple ad eundem 26 Feb., 1866 (eldest son of Rev. John Athawes, of Loughton, Bucks) ; born , 1836; married , 1869, Helena Turnell, dau. of Robert Spofforth, Esq., of Howden, Yorks.
    Darland House. Chatham; 1. Cloisters, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Aston, Joseph Keech

​Aston, Joseph Keech, secretary and treasurer to Queen Anne's Bounty since 1871, assistant cashier and accountant 186— 9, accountant 1869-71, a student of Lincoln's Inn 10 Nov., 1852 (then aged 28), called to the bar 6 June, 1855 (3rd son of Benjamin Richard Aston, Esq., late of London, dec.) ; born , 1824; married 5 July, 1855, Sarah Alice, eldest dau. of late Banister Eccles, Esq., of Blackburn.
    3, Dean's Yard. Westminster, S.W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Aston-Lewis, William Henry Denys

​Aston-Lewis, William Henry Denys, B.A. Pembroke Coll., Oxon, a student of Lincoln's Inn 15 Jan., 1878 (then aged 23), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1880 (only son of William Aston-Lewis, M.D., of Fulbeck, co. Lincoln); born , 1855.
    150, Oakley Street, Chelsea, S.W.; 3, Old Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn Archer

​Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn Archer, B.A. Brasenose Coll., Oxon, a member of the North-eastern circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 18 April, 1871 (then aged 22), called to the bar 30 April, 1875 (3rd son of late Ernest Jones, Esq., bar,-at-law, of Broughton, Manchester); born , 1849.
    4, Paper Buildings, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Atkins, George

​Atkins, George, B.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1869, conveyancer and equity draftsman, a student of Lincoln's Inn 23 Oct., 1869 (then aged 24), called to the bar 6 June, 1872 (only son of George Atkins, of Winkfield Berks, gent.); born 15 July, 1845; married 19 April, 1884, Jane Anne (née Dunbar) widow of John Billing Pope, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, bar.-at-law.
    Norbiton Lodge, New Maiden, Surrey.