OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 2/Ana (April 14, 1860)

ANA.
Strange is the origin of the name Macpherson, though now as common among the canny Scots as Williams or Bowen in Wales, or as hope or cherries in Kent. During the reign of David I. of Scotland, it appears that a younger brother of the chief of the then powerful clan Chattan espoused the clerical life, and in due course of time became Abbot of Kingussie. His elder brother, whether he fell in battle or died in his bed, somehow or other died childless, and the chieftainship unexpectedly devolved on the venerable abbot. Suiting the action to the word, or rather suiting his convictions to his circumstances, the monk procured from the Pope the necessary dispensation, and the Abbot of Kingussie became the husband of the fair daughter of the Thane of Calder. A swarm of little Kingussies naturally followed, and the good people of Inverness-shire as naturally called them Mac’Phersons, i. e., “the sons of the parson.” After this, who can say, “What’s in a name?”
It has generally been remarked, as a thing without precedent, that the late Duke of Wellington and three of his brothers should have enjoyed the honours of the Peerage at the same time: but a similar instance is, or rather was, to be found in the family of Boyle two centuries ago, when the three younger brothers of the Earl of Cork were severally ennobled as Lords Boyle, Broghill, and Shannon, to say nothing of the youngest of the family, Robert Boyle, the great philosopher, who frequently refused the sweets of both office and title, but whose fame has outlived that of all his coronetted brethren.
The following peerages, held by distinguished individuals, are now without heirs apparent or presumptive, and must therefore cease with the lives of their present holders:—Palmerston, Lyndhurst, Broughton, Ellenborough (earldom), Panmure, Cranworth, Dalhousie (marquisate), Canning, Eversley, Overstone, Wensleydale, Glenelg, Clyde, and Kingsdown.
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 2/Ana (December 31, 1859)

Contributor unknown.
ANA.
Good Manners and Good Riding.—The late Lord Charles Manners was an excellent horseman. Whilst serving in a horse regiment in the Peninsula, he came unexpectedly on a French cavalry piquet, who forthwith gave him chase, until he reached a brook which he cleared in true Melton style, taking off his hat, and bidding the Frenchmen “Adieu, Messieurs!” The Frenchmen, none of whom could take the leap, were chivalrously forbidden by their commanding officer to fire upon an unarmed foe. A caricature descriptive of the event, now scarce, was published at the time; it is called “A Belvoir Leap, or teaching the French Good Manners.”
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 2/An ice storm

AN ICE STORM.
COMMUNICATED BY THE CAPTAIN OF H.M.S. SIMOON.
At 11 a.m., on January 14th, in latitude 38° 0′ 50″ S., longitude 20° 0′ 45″ E., we were steering south, with the wind E.S.E. It had been looking dirty and rainy to the northward for an hour or so, and it gradually approached us. We commenced to take in some of the sails, and in a few minutes, with the wind changing to the N.N.E. it broke upon us with a pretty sharp squall and some rain; but all of a sudden down fell large lumps of ice, not at all resembling hailstones, but rough ragged pieces of clear ice as big as a breakfast-cup or a soap-dish. It only lasted about one minute or so, which was fortunate, or we should have had our sails knocked to pieces, and really, I think, loss of life. One piece, after passing from hand to hand, weighed three ounces, and I should imagine they were of six ounces weight ​when they fell. Some few men got hit—one on the foot, and he was laid up a week from the effects of the blow. I got a hit on two fingers, and the marks remained for ten days, and at first I thought I should lose a nail; and another on my japanned hat, which chipped it. The binnacle glass (plate) was broken, and the sails were riddled as if with small shot from the sharp points. Had I not been on deck for two hours previously I should have fancied we were under an iceberg, and the ice blowing off it on the top of us. It resembled half bricks falling on your head from a high wall: down below, the noise was that of 32-pound shot being thrown about the decks; and, indeed, both those on deck and below were much astonished. I never saw, nor did I ever hear of such a storm as this, although I have heard many strange stories.
The barometer remained steady at 29.86, and the thermometer at 70°. It cleared up afterwards, and gave us plenty to talk about for the rest of the day.
# Pennsylvania Company v. Bender

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
148 U.S. 255
Pennsylvania Company v. Bender
On motion to dismiss the writ of error. Granted.
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER: On September 12, 1887, the defendant in error filed his petition in the court of common pleas of Holmes county, Ohio, to recover from the defendant, the Pennsylvania Company, the sum of $10,000. On October 3d the defendant answered. On March 2, 1888, it filed a petition for removal to the United States circuit court for the northern district of Ohio. On March 24th a motion was made to strike this petition from the files, which on March 27th was sustained. At the May term, 1888, a trial was had, both parties appearing. A verdict was returned by the jury for $6,000, upon which judgment was duly entered. Thereafter a petition in error was filed in the circuit court of Holmes county to reverse such judgment. To this petition in error were attached two transcripts, one of the record in the court of common pleas, and the other of a certain journal entry of the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio. This journal entry was as follows:
'George S. Bender, administrator, vs. The Pennsylvania Company. Law. Tuesday, March 6, 1888. This day came on to be heard the petition of the defendant for an order for the removal of this case from the court of common pleas of Holmes county, Ohio, and, it appearing to the court that the defendant has filed in this court its petition, bond, and affidavit under the 2d section of the act of congress of March 3, 1887, entitled 'An act to determine the jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States and to regulate the removal of causes from state courts, and for other purposes,' &c., from which it appears to the court that said affidavit is in compliance with said 2d section of said act of congress, and that said bond is sufficient and satisfactory, and that said defendant, by its petition, affidavit, and bond, has shown that it is entitled to remove cause to this court.'
In that court a motion was made to strike the petition in error from the files, which motion was sustained. Thereupon the defendant filed its petition in error in the supreme court of the state to reverse this ruling. On May 17, 1892, that court sustained the ruling of the circuit court, and affirmed the judgment, to reverse which judgment of affirmance plaintiff in error sued out a writ of error from this court. The case is now submitted on a motion to dismiss.
L. R. Critchfield, for the motion.
Lucien L. Gilbert and J. R. Carey, opposed.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Pennsylvania Company v. Donat

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 50
Pennsylvania Company v. Donat
Argued: October 18, 1915. --- Decided: November 1, 1915
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, Samuel O. Pickens, Fred E. Zollars, James H. Rose, and Elmer E. Leonard for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Samuel Herrick, Rufus S. Day, R. B. Newcomb, James B. Harper, Otto E. Fuelber, Roscoe C. Skiles, Thomas J. Green, George M. Skiles, E. C. Chapman, and A. G. Newcomb for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McReynolds, by direction 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
# Pennsylvania Company v. Illinois Brick Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
297 U.S. 447
Pennsylvania Company v. Illinois Brick Company
Argued: Feb. 6, 7, 1936. --- Decided: March 2, 1936
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D.C., and David L. Dickson and Frank J. Loesch, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 448-449 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Abraham R. Miller, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 450-452 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER, 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
# Pennsylvania Company v. Jones

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
155 U.S. 333
Pennsylvania Company v. Jones
[Syllabus from pages 333-334 intentionally omitted]
Enoch Totten, for plaintiffs in error.
Wm. A. Cook and W. L. Cole, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS 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
# Pennsylvania Company v. Kittaning Iron & Steel Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 319
Pennsylvania Company v. Kittaning Iron & Steel Manufacturing Company
Argued: March 26, 1920. --- Decided: June 1, 1920
Messrs. Henry Wolf Bikle, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Frederic D. McKenney and J. S. Flannery, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. R. L. Ralston, of Kittaning, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Pennsylvania Company v. Donat/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 50
Pennsylvania Company v. Donat
Argued: October 18, 1915. --- Decided: November 1, 1915
The question presented upon this writ of error is 'so frivolous as not to need further argument,' and the motion to affirm the judgment below must be granted. (Rule 6, § 5.)
Basing his claim upon the employers' liability act of April 22, 1908 (35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657), Marion Donat began the original action in the United States district court for Indiana against the Pennsylvania Company, a carrier by railroad, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by him while employed as a yard conductor. The trial court refused a request to charge that he was not engaged in interstate commerce when the accident occurred, and therefore could not recover. This refusal is the sole ground upon which error is now asserted.
Two loaded coal cars coming from without the state were received in the carrier's yard at Fort Wayne, Indiana. They were destined to Olds' private switch track connecting with the yard; and, acting under instructions, Donat commenced the switching movement requisite to place them thereon. There was evidence tending to show that, in order to complete this movement, it became necessary to uncouple the engine from the loaded cars and with it to remove two empty ones from the private track. While engaged about the removal, defendant in error was injured. The trial court submitted to the jury for determination whether he was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury, and in approving such action (224 Fed. 1021) the circuit court of appeals was clearly right. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260, 262, 263, 59 L. ed. 1298, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780.
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
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/A page from the history of Kleinundengreich

​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/540
​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/540 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/541 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/542
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/A Tuscan wedding - Part 2

←Part 1
​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/99 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/100 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/101 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/102 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/103 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/104
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/A new chapter in photography

​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/698 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/699 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/700 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/701
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/A very strange story - Part 1

Part 2→
​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/472 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/473 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/474 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/475 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/476
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/A look at the Federal army

Contributor unknown.
​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/215 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/216 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/217 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/218 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/219
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/"Up Vesuvius"

​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/131 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/132 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/133 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/134 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/135
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/A Tuscan wedding - Part 1

​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/88 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/89 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/90 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/91 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/92 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/93
# Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 6/A dreadful ghost

​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/221 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/222 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/223 ​Page:Once a Week Dec 1861 to June 1862.pdf/224 ​if trying to make believe I saw nothing there; but it was in vain.
For the Figure advanced noiselessly, with that air of irresistibly charming, dignified courtesy of the old school, for which, everybody said, the Doctor had been so remarkable. 1t extended its hand—a hand which a year ago I would have travelled five hundred miles to grasp. Now, I shrank from it—I loathed it.
In vain. It came nearer. It touched mine with a soft, cold, unearthly touch. I could endure no longer. I shrieked out; and my wife woke me from what was, thank Heaven, only a dream. *****
"Yes, it was indeed a Dreadful Ghost," said that excellent woman, when she had heard my whole story, and we had again composed ourselves as sole occupants of the railway carriage which was conveying us through the dead of night to visit that identical family whom I had been dreaming about—whom, as stated, we had never seen.
"Let us be thankful, Charles, that it was a mere fantasy of your over-excited imagination—that the dear old Doctor sleeps peacefully in his quiet grave; and that his affectionate family have never summoned him, soul or body, to sit of nights by their uncanny fire-side, as you so horribly describe. What a blessing that such things cannot be."
"Ay," replied I—"though, as Imlac says in 'Rasselas,' 'that the dead cannot return, I will not undertake to prove;' still, I think it in the highest degree improbable. Their work here is done; they are translated to a higher sphere of being; they may still see us, love us, watch over us; but they belong to us no more. Mary, when I leave you, remember I don't wish ever to he brought back again; to come rapping on tables and knocking about chairs; delivering ridiculous messages to deluded inquirers, and altogether comporting myself in a manner that proves, great fool as I may have been in the body, I must be a still greater fool out of in."
"And, Charles," said the little woman, creeping up to me with tears in her eyes, "if I must lose you—dearly as I love you—l would rather bury you under the daisies and in my heart; bury you, and never see you again till we meet in the world to come, than I would have you revisiting your old fire-side after the fashion of this Dreadful Ghost."
# Overton v. Oklahoma

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 31
Overton v. Oklahoma
Argued: October 19, 1914. --- Decided: November 9, 1914
Messrs. Charles B. Stuart and A. C. Cruce for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by Mr. Chief Justice White:

## 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
# Overton v. Oklahoma/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 31
Overton v. Oklahoma
Argued: October 19, 1914. --- Decided: November 9, 1914
The verdict and sentence were on an indictment for illegally moving liquor (§ 4180, Snyder's Compiled Laws of Oklahoma). The defense was that the movement was to complete an interstate shipment, from Missouri. The court instructed that the statute did not apply to such a shipment, and hence, if the movement was as asserted, there must be an acquittal. Under this situation the contention here made that the statute was repugnant to the commerce clause is too frivolous to support jurisdiction. And this is also true of the contention that there is jurisdiction because the facts establish that the conclusion of guilt could only have been reached by plainly disregarding the proof as to the character of the shipment, thus in fact applying the statute to interstate commerce, since the record affords no justification for the assumption upon which the proposition rests.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

## Notes

* ↑ Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co. 223 U.S. 573, 591, 56 L. ed. 556, 565, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 316; Creswill v. Grand Lodge, K. P. 225 U.S. 246, 261, 56 L. ed. 1074, 1080, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 822; Southern P. Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U.S. 601, 611, 57 L. ed. 662, 669, 43 L.R.A.(N.S.) 901, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Portland R. Light & P. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 229 U.S. 397, 411, 412, 57 L. ed. 1248, 1258, 1259, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820; Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U.S. 236, 243, 244, 58 L. ed. 584, 590, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 309; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. West, 232 U. 682, 691, 692, 58 L. ed. 795, 801, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 471.
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
# Owen Clancy's Happy Trail

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Extracted from New Tip Top Weekly, 28 March 1914, pp. 1–21.
OWEN CLANCY'S HAPPY TRAIL;
Or, THE MOTOR WIZARD IN CALIFORNIA.
By BURT L. STANDISH
* I. Almost a Riot 1
* II. Clancy Hits the "Happy Trail" 3
* III. Hatching a Plot 4
* IV. Clancy reaches Los Angeles 6
* V. The Motor Wizard's Judgment 8
* VI. The Glass-Bottom Boat 9
* VII. At the Base of Old Sugarloaf 11
* VIII. Treachery That Succeeded—and Failed 12
* IX. A Split in the Gang 14
* X. Plot and Counterplot 16
* XI. Aboard the "Sylvia" 17
* XII. More Than He Bargained For 19
* XIII. A "Wireless" for Lafe
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1945, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 78 years or less. 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
# Overton v. Cheek

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 46
Overton v. Cheek
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of West Tennessee.
Mr. Davidge moved to dismiss the writ for the following reasons, which motion was opposed by Mr. Gillet.
In this cause, a transcript of the record was filed in the office of the clerk of this court on the eighteenth day of February, 1858, and the cause was thereupon docketed. No writ of error was returned with the transcript; nor has any writ of error, in a legal sense, ever been returned. But on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1859, a paper was filed in the clerk's office, in form of a writ of error, but without the seal of the Circuit Court, whose proceedings are to be re-examined, and without an authenticated transcript of the record annexed to and returned with it, as required by the judiciary act.
By reference to the transcript, it will appear that the judgment of the Circuit Court was rendered on the sixteenth day of April, 1857. At the ensuing term of this court, the transcript was filed. The paper filed in the clerk's office purports to have been issued by the clerk of the Circuit Court on the seventeenth day of April, 1857, and it is returnable to this court on the first Monday of December, 1857. It does not appear ever to have been filed in the Circuit Court. There is no citation.
It is submitted—
1. That in order to give jurisdiction to this court, the writ of error must be under the seal of the Circuit Court, whose clerk is authorized to issue it. Act of Congress of May eighth, 1792, sec. 9; (1 Statutes at Large, 278.)
2. That the writ of error must be returned at the ensuing term. If a term intervene, the objection is fatal.
Hamilton v. Moore, 3 Dallas, 371.
Steamer Virginia v. West et al., 19 Howard, 182.
Villalobos v. United States, 6 Howard, 81.
United States v. Carey, ib., 106.
3. That there must be annexed to, and returned with, the writ, an authenticated transcript of the record. Without the writ, the transcript is filed without authority of law; and a writ of error without the record of the court to be reviewed, or reasons for not returning it, is not returned. Here the writ of error comes back as it went out. There is no return, and hence no jurisdiction.
4. The writ does not appear to have been filed in the Circuit Court.
Brooks v. Norris, 11 Howard, 204.
5. There was no citation, and no legal evidence of the waiver of the citation. The transcript filed does show that the citation was waived; but that transcript is not legally before this court, not having been returned in obedience to process.
6. That the transcript was not returned in conformity with law and the rules of this court.
Mr. Justice McLEAN 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