OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Notable South Australians/Alfred William Meeks

Layout 2
Alfred William Meeks
WAS born at Cheltenham, England, and at an early age arrived in Victoria. He received his education at St James' and other prominent schools, and graduated as a teacher. He entered the employ of a mercantile house, from which he was transferred to more important appointments, becoming salesman and manager of a large Victorian import business; here arrangements were made for his admission to the partnership, but circumstances arose ​which necessitated the principal residing in England, whither he went, and ultimately retired from business. He was next appointed manager of Messrs. Gibbs, Bright & Co.'s (then Bright Bros. & Co.) indent and sales department, in which he was very successful. In 1883, upon the London house (Messrs. Antony Gibbs & Sons) deciding to establish a branch in Adelaide, Mr. Meeks was selected for this important duty. Under his direction this branch has grown very rapidly, and already assumed a foremost position in mercantile ranks. Since his residence in Adelaide he has occupied a prominent place in mercantile affairs, as witnessed by his appointment to a seat on the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, S.A. Corn Trade, Association, and other kindred societies. Mr. Meeks has also taken an active part in the working of some of our religious and charitable institutions, such as the S.A. Sunday School Union and the Industrial School for the Blind. A few remarks relative to the firm of Messrs. Gibbs, Bright & Co., with which Mr. Meeks is so actively connected, will not be out of place here. This firm is a branch of the well-known London house of Messrs, Antony Gibbs & Sons, and although but a comparatively short time established here, it has for many years occupied one of the leading positions in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and Dunedin. The other houses are Messrs. Antony Gibbs, Sons & Co., Liverpool and Bristol, and Messrs. Gibbs & Co., Valparaiso and Iquique (S. America). As shippers and owners of the celebrated steamship Great Britain the name of Gibbs, Bright & Co. has become a household word in many lands.
# Notable South Australians/A. H. F. Bartels, J.P.

Layout 2
A. H. F. Bartels, J.P.,
WHOSE career was an instance of what a man may accomplish by industry and perseverance, was a native of Hanover, and arrived in South Australia in 1848, under engagement to the late Mr. Seppelt, of Seppeltsfield. He visited Victoria during the gold fever of 1852, but returned to the colony, and entered into business in Adelaide. Married Mrs. Uhlendorf, of the King of Hanover Hotel, and carried on the business of an hotel-keeper successfully, for about ten years, when he entered into partnership with Mr. G. H. C. Meyer, as general agents and grain merchants, a connection which existed up to the time of his death. In December 1866, he was elected by the ratepayers in Hindmarsh Ward for a seat in the City Council, and held that office four years. Was returned as Mayor of Adelaide in December 1871, and filled the position for two years, to the satisfaction of the citizens generally. He was a Director of the Permanent and Equitable Building Society and other public companies. Mr. Bartels was a man of much ability, and universally liked for his sterling qualities. After the death of his first wife he married Miss Weidenbach, who was left his widow. He died on November 9, 1878.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon VIII

Canon VIII.
Let those who have twice or thrice sacrificed under compulsion, be prostrators four years, and communicate without oblation two years, and the seventh year they shall be received to full communion.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VIII.
Whoever has sacrificed a second or third time, but has been led thereto by force, shall be a prostrator for seven years.
Van Espen.
This canon shews how in the Church it was a received principle that greater penances ought to be imposed for the frequent commission of the same crime, and consequently it was then believed that the number of times the sin had been committed should be expressed in confession, that the penance might correspond to the sin, greater or less as the case may be, and the time of probation be accordingly protracted or remitted.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon XIII

Canon XIII.
It is not lawful for Chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons, and most assuredly not presbyters of a city, without the commission of the bishop given in writing, in another parish.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIII.
A chorepiscopus is not to ordain without the consent of the bishop.
Hefele.
If the first part of the thirteenth canon is easy to understand, the second, on the contrary, presents a great difficulty; for a priest of a town could not in any case have the power of consecrating priests and deacons, least of all in a strange diocese. Many of the most learned men have, for this reason, supposed that the Greek text of the second half of the canon, as we have read it, is incorrect or defective. It wants, say they, ποιεῖν τι, or aliquid agere, i.e., to complete a religious function. To confirm this supposition, they have appealed to several ancient versions, especially to that of Isidore: sed nec presbyteris civitatis sine episcopi præcepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine auctoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque (some read ἐν ἐκάστῃ instead of ἐν ἑτέρᾳ) parochia aliquid agere. The ancient Roman ms. of the canons, Codex Canonum, has the same reading, only that it has provincia instead of parochia. Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, who long ago made a collection of canons, translates in the same way in his Breviatio Canonum: Ut presbyteri civitatis sine jussu episcopi nihil jubeant, nec in unaquaque parochia aliquid agant. Van Espen has explained this canon in the same way.
Routh has given another interpretation. He maintained that there was not a word missing in this canon, but that at the commencement one ought to read, according to several mss. χωρεπισκόποις in the dative, and further down ἀλλὰ μὴν μηδὲ instead of ἀλλα μηδὲ then πρεσβυτέρους (in the accusative) πόλεως and finally ἐκάστῃ instead of ἑτέρᾳ, and that we must therefore translate, “Chorepiscopi are not permitted to consecrate priests and deacons (for the country) still less (ἀλλὰ μὴν μηδὲ) can they consecrate priests for the town without the consent of the bishop of the place.” The Greek text, thus modified according to some mss., especially those in the Bodleian Library, certainly gives a good meaning. Still ἀλλὰ μὴν μηδὲ does not mean, but still less: it means, but certainly not, which makes a considerable difference.
Besides this, it can very seldom have happened that the chorepiscopi ordained presbyters or deacons for a town; and if so, they were already forbidden, at least implicitly, in the first part of the canon.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon XIX

Canon XIX.
If any persons who profess virginity shall disregard their profession, let them fulfil the term of digamists. And, moreover, we prohibit women who are virgins from living with men as sisters.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIX.
Whoever has professed virginity and afterwards annuls it, let him be cut off for four years. And virgins shall not go to any as to brothers.
Hammond.
According to some of the ancient canons digamists were to be suspended from communion for one or two years, though Beveridge and others doubt whether the rule was not meant to apply to such marriages only as were contracted before a former one was dissolved. Bingham thinks that it was intended to discountenance marrying after an unlawful divorce. (Ant., Bk. xv, c. iv., § 18.)
Hefele.
The first part of this canon regards all young persons—men as well as women—who have taken a vow of virginity, and who, having thus, so to speak, betrothed themselves to God are guilty of a quasi digamy in violating that promise. They must therefore incur the punishment of digamy (successiva) which, according to St. Basil the Great, consisted of one year’s seclusion.
This canon is found in Gratian’s Decretum (P. II., Causa xxvii., Q. i., c. xxiv.) as follows: “As many as have professed virginity and have broken their vow and contemned their profession shall be treated as digamists, that is as those who have contracted a second marriage.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Aristenus understands this to mean to “live with,” using the verb συναναστρέφεσθαι.
* ↑ This view of Bingham’s would seem to be untenable, since the penance would have been for adultery not for digamy had the former marriage still been in force.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon VII

Canon VII.
Concerning those who have partaken at a heathen feast in a place appointed for heathens, but who have brought and eaten their own meats, it is decreed that they be received after they have been prostrators two years; but whether with oblation, every bishop must determine after he has made examination into the rest of their life.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VII.
If anyone having his own food, shall eat it with heathen at their feasts, let him be a prostrator for two years.
Hefele.
Several Christians tried with worldly prudence, to take a middle course. On the one hand, hoping to escape persecution, they were present at the feasts of the heathen sacrifices, which were held in the buildings adjoining the temples; and on the other, in order to appease their consciences, they took their own food, and touched nothing that had been offered to the gods. These Christians forgot that St. Paul had ordered that meats sacrificed to the gods should be avoided, not because they were tainted in themselves, as the idols were nothing, but from another, and in fact a twofold reason: 1st, Because, in partaking of them, some had still the idols in their hearts, that is to say, were still attached to the worship of idols, and thereby sinned; and 2dly, Because others scandalized their brethren, and sinned in that way. To these two reasons a third may be added, namely, the hypocrisy and the duplicity of those Christians who wished to appear heathens, and nevertheless to remain Christians. The Synod punished them with two years of penance in the third degree, and gave to each bishop the right, at the expiration of this time, either to admit them to communion, or to make them remain some time longer in the fourth degree.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon XIV

Canon XIV.
It is decreed that among the clergy, presbyters and deacons who abstain from flesh shall taste of it, and afterwards, if they shall so please, may abstain. But if they disdain it, and will not even eat herbs served with flesh, but disobey the canon, let them be removed from their order.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.
A priest who is an abstainer from flesh, let him merely taste it and so let him abstain. But if he will not taste even the vegetables cooked with the meat let him be deposed (πεπάυσθω).
There is a serious dispute about the reading of the Greek text. I have followed Routh, who, relying on three mss. the Collectio of John of Antioch and the Latin versions, reads εἰ δὲ βδελύσσοιντο instead of the εἰ δὲ βούλοιντο of the ordinary text, which as Bp. Beveridge had pointed out before has no meaning unless a μὴ be introduced.
Zonaras points out that the canon chiefly refers to the Love feasts.
I cannot agree with Hefele in his translation of the last clause. He makes the reference to “this present canon,” I think it is clearly to the 53 (52) of the so-called Canons of the Apostles, τῷ κανόνι “the well-known Canon.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon XII

Canon XII.
It is decreed that they who have offered sacrifice before their baptism, and were afterwards baptized, may be promoted to orders, inasmuch as they have been cleansed.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XII.
Whoso has sacrificed before his baptism, after it shall be guiltless.
Hefele.
This canon does not speak generally of all those who sacrificed before baptism; for if a heathen sacrificed before having embraced Christianity, he certainly could not be reproached for it after his admission. It was quite a different case with a catechumen, who had already declared for Christianity, but who, during the persecution had lost courage, and sacrificed. In this case it might be asked whether he could still be admitted to the priesthood. The Council decided that a baptized catechumen could afterwards be promoted to holy orders.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon XVI

Canon XVI.
Let those who have been or who are guilty of bestial lusts, if they have sinned while under twenty years of age, be prostrators fifteen years, and afterwards communicate in prayers; then, having passed five years in this communion, let them have a share in the oblation. But let their life as prostrators be examined, and so let them receive indulgence; and if any have been insatiable in their crimes, then let their time of prostration be prolonged. And if any who have passed this age and had wives, have fallen into this sin, let them be prostrators twenty-five years, and then communicate in prayers; and, after they have been five years in the communion of prayers, let them share the oblation. And if any married men of more than fifty years of age have so sinned, let them be admitted to communion only at the point of death.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XVI.
Whoever shall have commerce with animals devoid of reason being younger than twenty, shall be a prostrator for fifteen years. If he is over that age and has a wife when he falls into this wickedness he shall be a prostrator for twenty-five years.  But the married man who shall do so when over fifty years of age, shall be a prostrator to his life’s end.
It is interesting to compare with this, as Van Espen does, the canon of the Church of England set forth in the tenth century under King Edgar, where, Part II., canon xvi., we read—
“If any one twenty years of age shall defile himself with a beast, or shall commit sodomy let him fast fifteen years; and if he have a wife and be forty years of age, and shall do such a deed let him abstain now and fast all the rest of his life, neither shall he presume until he is dying to receive the Lord’s body. Youths and fools who shall do any such thing shall be soundly trounced.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon XI

Canon XI.
It is decreed that virgins who have been betrothed, and who have afterwards been carried off by others, shall be restored to those to whom they had formerly been betrothed, even though they may have suffered violence from the ravisher.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XI.
If a young girl who is engaged be stolen away by force by another man, let her be restored to the former.
Hefele.
This canon treats only of betrothed women (of the sponsalia de futuro) not of those who are married (of the sponsalia de præsenti). In the case of the latter there could be no doubt as to the duty of restitution. The man who was betrothed was, moreover, at liberty to receive his affianced bride who had been carried off or not.
Johnson.
Here Balsamon puts in a very proper cave, viz.: If he to whom she was espoused demand her to be his wife.
Compare St. Basil’s twenty-second canon in his letter to Amphilochius, where it is so ruled.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon XV

Canon XV.
Concerning things belonging to the church, which presbyters may have sold when there was no bishop, it is decreed that the Church property shall be reclaimed; and it shall be in the discretion of the bishop whether it is better to receive the purchase price, or not; for oftentimes the revenue of the things sold might yield them the greater value.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XV.
Sales of Church goods made by presbyters are null, and the matter shall rest with the bishop.
Hefele.
If the purchaser of ecclesiastical properties has realized more by the temporary revenue of such properties than the price of the purchase, the Synod thinks there is no occasion to restore him this price, as he has already received a sufficient indemnity from the revenue, and as, according to the rules then in force, interest drawn from the purchase money was not permitted.  Besides, the purchaser had done wrong in buying ecclesiastical property during the vacancy of a see (sede vacante). Beveridge and Routh have shown that in the text ἀνακαλεῖσθαι and πρόσοδον must be read.

## Footnotes

* ↑ ἀνακαλεῖσθαν for ἀναβαλεῖσθαι and πρόσοδον for εἰσοδον.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Canons/Canon X

Canon X.
They who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide so, and who afterwards have married, shall continue in their ministry, because it was conceded to them by the bishop. But if any were silent on this matter, undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterwards proceeded to marriage, these shall cease from the diaconate.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon X.
Whoso is to be ordained deacon, if he has before announced to the bishop that he cannot persevere unmarried, let him marry and let him be a deacon; but if he shall have kept silence, should he take a wife afterwards let him be cast out.
Van Espen.
The case proposed to the synod and decided in this canon was as follows: When the bishop was willing to ordain two to the diaconate, one of them declared that he did not intend to bind himself to preserving perpetual continence, but intended to get married, because he had not the power to remain continent. The other said nothing. The bishop laid his hands on each and conferred the diaconate.
After the ordination it fell out that both got married, the question propounded is, What must be done in each case? The synod ruled that he who had made protestation at his ordination should remain in his ministry, “because of the license of the bishop,” that is that he might contract matrimony after the reception of the diaconate. With regard to him who kept silence the synod declares that he should cease from his ministry.
The resolution of the synod to the first question shews that there was a general law which bound the deacons to continence; but this synod judged it meet that the bishops for just cause might dispense with this law, and this license or dispensation was deemed to have been given by the bishop if he ordained him after his protestation at the time of his ordination that he intended to be married, because he could not remain as he was; giving by the act of ordination his tacit approbation. Moreover from this decision it is also evident that not only was the ordained deacon allowed to enter but also to use matrimony after his ordination.…Moreover the deacon who after this protestation entered and used matrimony, not only remained a deacon, but continued in the exercise of his ministry.
On the whole subject of Clerical Celibacy in the Early Church see the Excursus devoted to that matter.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum Pars I., Dist. xxviii, c. viii.
# Ocampo v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 91
Ocampo v. United States
Argued: March 12 and 13, 1914. --- Decided: May 25, 1914
Messrs. William R. Harr and Clement L. Bouv e for plaintiffs in error.
Solicitor General Davis for defendant in error.
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
# Ocala Star-Banner Company v. Damron

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

## Concurring Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 295
Ocala Star-Banner Co. et al. v. Damron
Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
No. 118. Argued: December 17, 1970 --- Decided: February 24, 1971
Petitioner newspaper published a false story that respondent, then a mayor and a candidate for county tax assessor, had been charged with perjury in federal court, and respondent sued for libel. The judge instructed the jury that the charge was libelous per se and that respondent could recover damages without showing malice. The jury awarded compensatory damages. The judge denied the newspaper's motion for a new trial on the basis of the "actual malice" test of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, on the ground that the article did not refer to respondent's official conduct. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the New York Times rule did not apply.
Held: A charge of criminal conduct against a public official or a candidate for public office, no matter how remote in time or place, is always "relevant to his fitness for office" for purposes of applying the New York Times rule of knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth. Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, ante, p. 265. Pp. 299-301.
221 So. 2d 459, reversed and remanded.
STEWART, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and HARLAN, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 301. BLACK, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, in which DOUGLAS, J., joined, ante, p. 277.
Harold B. Wahl argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.
Wallace Dunn argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

## 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
# Ocala Star-Banner Company v. Damron/Concurrence White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion White
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 295
Ocala Star-Banner Company v. Damron
Argued: Dec. 17, 1970. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1971
Mr. Justice WHITE, concurring.
Inevitably, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), by imposing on libel and slander plaintiffs the burden of showing knowing or reckless falsehood in specified situations will result in extending constitutional protection to lies and falsehoods which, though neither knowing nor reckless, do severe damage to personal reputation. The First Amendment is not so construed, however, to award merit badges for intrepid but mistaken or careless reporting. Misinformation has no merit in itself; standing alone it is as antithetical to the purposes of the First Amendment as the calculated lie. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). Its substance contributes nothing to intelligent decisionmaking by citizens or officials; it achieves nothing but gratuitous injury. The sole basis for protecting publishers who spread false information is that otherwise the truth would too often be suppressed. That innocent falsehoods are sometimes protected only to ensure access to the truth has been noted before, St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), and it is well that the thought is repeated today in Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279 at 292, 91 S.Ct. 633, at 640, 28 L.Ed.2d 45.

## 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