OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Who's Who in India Supplement 1 (1912)/BIJAWAR — His HIGHNESS Maharaja Sawai Sir Sawant Singh Bahadur, K. C. I. E.

​BIJAWAR — His HIGHNESS Maharaja Sawai Sir Sawant Singh Bahadur, K. C. I. E., Maharaja of— a Ruling Chief, whose biography appears in Part I, page 45, of this work, was invested with the insignia of Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire by His Majesty the King-Emperor, on the occasion of the recent Coronation Durbar.
# Who's Who in India Supplement 1 (1912)/BHUTAN— His Highness Maharaja Sri Sri Sri Sri Sri Sir Ugyen Wangchuk, K. C. S. I., K. C. I. E.

​BHUTAN— His Highness Maharaja Sri Sri Sri Sri Sri Sir Ugyen Wangchuk, K. C. S. I., K. C. I. E., Maharaja of — a Ruling Chief, whose biography appears in Part I, page 105, of this work, was invested with the insignia of Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India by His Majesty the King-Emperor, on the occasion of the recent Coronation Durbar.
# Who's Who in India Supplement 1 (1912)/Bhagwant Singh

​Bhagwant Singh, Sardar Bahadur, was granted his title on the occasion of the recent Coronation Durbar, in recognition of his services to Government and the public. Address: Barheli, Umballa District, Punjab.
# United States v. Fossat

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 413
United States v. Fossat
[MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, BEING INDISPOSED, DID NOT SIT IN THIS CASE.]

## 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
# United States v. Fossatt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
62 U.S. 445
United States v. Fossatt
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
It was the same case which was before this court at the preceding term, and is reported in 20 Howard, 413. The position of the case is explained in the second opinion of the court, as delivered by Mr. Justice Campbell.
Being so down upon the docket as that there was no probability of reaching it in the regular order of business, a motion was made to take it up out of its regular turn. This motion was argued by Mr. Bayard and Mr. Nelson in favor of it, and by Mr. Black against it.
Mr. Black (Attorney General) remarked, that he could not say that the public business of the Government was obstructed in consequence of the pendency of this appeal.
Upon this motion, Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Foster

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Foster."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Foster (128 U.S. 435)
* United States v. Foster (233 U.S. 515)
See also Foster v. United States.
# United States v. Foster (128 U.S. 435)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
128 U.S. 435
United States v. Foster
[Statement of Case from pages 435-437 intentionally omitted]
Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard and F. P. Dewees, for appellant.
Robt. B. Lines and John Paul Jones, for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, 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
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 195

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1160th meeting, unanimously, on 9 October 1964
The Security Council,
Having examined the application of Malawi for admission to the United Nations,
Recommends to the General Assembly that Malawi be admitted to Membership in the United Nations.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 1942

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 6393rd meeting, on 29 September 2010
The Security Council,
Recalling its previous resolution 1933 concerning Côte d’Ivoire and, in accordance with its paragraph 20, recalling its intention to consider raising for a limited period of time, prior to and after the elections, the level of authorized military and police personnel up to a total of no more than 500 additional personnel,
Recalling the letter of the Secretary-General dated 14 September 2010 (S/2010/485) which recommended a temporary increase of the authorized military and police personnel of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) from 8,650 to 9,150,
Recalling the letter of its President dated 17 September 2010 (S/2010/486) which approved the course of action outlined in the above letter of the Secretary-General,
Taking note of the establishment of the final voters list which was agreed upon by the Ivorian parties on 6 September 2010 and taking note of the certification of this voters list by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on 24 September 2010 in Abidjan as mentioned by the letter of the Secretary-General dated 23 September 2010 (S/2010/493),
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides to authorize, as recommended by the Secretary-General in his letter dated 14 September 2010 (S/2010/485), a temporary increase of UNOCI’s authorized military and police personnel from 8,650 to 9,150;
2. Authorizes the immediate deployment of those additional capacities for a period of up to six months;
3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 1947

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 6414th meeting, on 29 October 2010
The Security Council,
Recalling resolution 1645 (2005) and in particular its paragraph 27,
Reaffirming the importance of the peacebuilding work carried out by the United Nations, and the need for sustained support and adequate resources for this work,
Recognizing the role of the Peacebuilding Commission as a dedicated intergovernmental advisory body to address the needs of countries emerging from conflict towards sustainable peace,
1. Welcomes the report presented by the co-facilitators entitled “Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture”, as set out in document S/2010/393, which is based on extensive consultations with the United Nations membership and other stakeholders;
2. Requests all relevant United Nations actors to take forward, within their mandates and as appropriate, the recommendations of the report with the aim of further improving the effectiveness of the Peacebuilding Commission;
3. Recognizes that the peacebuilding work of the United Nations requires sustained support and adequate resources to meet the challenges;
4. Requests the Peacebuilding Commission to reflect in its annual reports progress made in taking forward the relevant recommendations of the report;
5. Calls for a further comprehensive review five years after the adoption of the present resolution following the procedure as set out in paragraph 27 of resolution 1645 (2005);
6. Decides to remain seized of the matter
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHIH-JUI, General

Layout 2
​CHIH-JUI, General (NINGHSIA), native of Manchuria; metropolitan graduate, 1880; assistant Military Governor. Appointed Chief Supervisor of Instruction, June, 1889; denounced two foreigners to the Throne, Nov., 1889, for wrong fulfilment of contracts for ammunition; Sub-Chancellor, Grand Secretariat, March, 1893; Vice-President Board of Ceremonies, March, 1894; Military assistant Governor, Uliasut'ai, Dec., 1894; Commandant of Forces, Hi, Oct., 1899; assistant Military Governor, Niughsia, Kansu, April, 1906.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHINA, Emperor of

Layout 2
​CHINA, Emperor of (see: KUANG HSU).
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHINDA, Stemi

Layout 2
​ CHINDA, Stemi (TOKYO), ex-Vice-Minister of F oreign Affairs; b. 1856, at Hirosaki. Educ.: American University; graduated 1881. Appointed clerk of Foreign Office, 1885; was appointed to the charge of telegraph section in same office; Consul at San Francisco, 1890; removed to Consulate at Ninsen; Consul-General at Shanghai, 1895; Minister Resident at Brazil; later at the Hague, 1899-1900; Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary at St. Petersburg, 1900; recalled in 1901 to assist Baron Komura as his immediate subordinate; resigned from Foreign Office, Jan., 1906. Address: Tokyo, Japan.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHIC HESTER, Major Arlington Augustus

Layout 2
​CHICHESTER, Major Arlington Augustus (HONGKONG), D.S.O. Deputy Asst. Adjutant Geneial; I. July 2, 1863, s. of late Major-Gen. J. O. (Winchester, of Western House, Chudleigh, Devon; m. 1891. Eva Isabella Maude, 3rd d. of Mi-.j-.Gen. H. Justice, formerly I.S.C., of Riven Hall, Southsea. Educ.: Cheltenham College; Bcyal Military College; passed Staff College. Entered Dorsetshire Regiment as Lieut., 1884; Capt., March 11; 1891; Major, Feb. 26, 3892; tame 1o China, Aug., 1804; served in South African War, 1899-1801, on Staff; at relief of Ladysmith, including operations of Jan. 17 to 24, 1900, and action at Spion Kop; operations of Feb. 5 to 7, 1900, and action at Vaal Kvanz; operations on Tugela Heigh s (Fei. 14 to 27, 1900) and action at Pietei's I il.; operation in the Transvaal in Jun., 1930; operations in Natal, March to June, 1900, including action at Laing's Nek (Jun. 6 to 9); operations in Orange River Colony (Jun., 1930); mentioned in despatches, Sept. 10, 1901. Decorations: Queen's medal with 5 clasps; King's medal with 2 clasps; D.S.O. Clubs: Hongkong; Ciicket. Address: Military Headquarters, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHINA, Empress Dowager of

Layout 2
​CHINA, Empress Dowager of (see: TSZE HI).
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHINA (MID), Bishop of

Layout 2
​CHINA (MID), Bishop of (see: MOULE, RT. REV. GEORGE EVANS).
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHING, Prince

Layout 2
​ CHING, Prince (see: I-K'UANG.)
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHING-HOU

Layout 2
​ CHING-HOU (PEKING), Vice-President, Board of War; Imperial clansman. Appointed assistant Supervisor of Instruction, Aug., 1901; Reader at the Hanlin; Vice-President, Board of Ceremonies, Mukden, Feb., 1903; senior Vice-President, Board of War, July, 1905.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHINA (NORTH), Bishop of

Layout 2
​ CHINA (NORTH), Bishop of (see: SCOTT, RT. REV. CHARLES PERRY).
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHINA (WESTERN), Bishop of

Layout 2
​ CHINA (WESTERN), Bishop of (see: CASSELS, RT. REV. WILLIAM WHARTON).
# War and Peace (Tolstoy)/Book 7

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
# United States v. Haley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 18
United States v. Haley
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
# United States v. Hall (98 U.S. 343)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 343
United States v. Hall
CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
Mr. P. C. Smith, contra.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD 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
# United States v. Hailey/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
118 U.S. 233
United States v. Hailey
Argued: May 10, 1886. ---
This case has been docketed here as an appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Idaho, but, on looking into the transcript, we find that the suit was at law and the trial by a jury. Under such circumstances, the only proper way of bringing it here for review would have been by writ of error. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U.S. 610; U.S. v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 263; Hecht v. Boughton, Id. 235; Woolf v. Hamilton, 108 U.S. 15; S.C.. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139. In point of fact, however, there has been neither a writ of error, nor an appeal, nor a citation, nor an appearance by the defendant or respondent. It is clear, therefore, we have no jurisdiction, and the case is dismissed.

## 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
# United States v. Hall

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Hall."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Hall (98 U.S. 343)
* United States v. Hall (131 U.S. 50)
* United States v. Hall (147 U.S. 691)
See also Hall v. United States.
# United States v. Hall (131 U.S. 50)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
131 U.S. 50
United States v. Hall
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for the United States.
Frank H. Hurd, Walter H. Smith, and Wm. M. Stewart, for defendant.
MILLER, 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
# United States v. Hall (147 U.S. 691)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
147 U.S. 691
United States v. Hall
Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:
This was an action by a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio for docket fees, and for fees for taking the acknowledgment of sureties upon recognizances. The court rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner for $336.75, and the United States appealed.
Sol. Gen. Aldrich, for the United States.
C. C. Lancaster, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, 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
# United States v. Hall (147 U.S. 691)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
147 U.S. 691
United States v. Hall
(1) The charge for docket fees must be disallowed upon the authority of U.S. v. Ewing, 140 U.S. 142, 147, par. 7, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 743.
(2) The claim for acknowledgments is based upon the allegation of the petition that the plaintiff 'took and certified 103 acknowledgments of sureties on recognizances of defendants in prosecutions brought by the United States, for each of which acknowledgments plaintiff was entitled by the statutes of the United States to receive the sum of twenty-five cents.' This item must also be reduced to a fee of 25 cents for taking a single acknowledgment in each case, since it was held in the case of U.S. v. Ewing, above cited, (page 146, par. 2, 140 U.S., and page 743, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep.,) that the taking of an acknowledgment in a criminal cause by the accused and his sureties is a single act, for which only one fee can be charged. If, for any reason, it was necessary to take them separately, that fact should have been made to appear. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff.
The judgment of the court must, therefore, be reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to reduce the judgment in conformity with this opinion.

## 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
# Willard Company v. Palmer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 106
Willard Company v. Palmer
Argued: Oct. 18, 19, and 20, 1920. ---
Mr. William L. Day, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.
Mr. Chief Justice WHITE 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
# Willard Company v. Palmer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 106
Willard Company v. Palmer
Argued: Oct. 18, 19, and 20, 1920. ---
In this case the complainants filed their bill to enjoin the Attorney General and the United States attorney from taking steps to enforce against them provisions of the fourth section of the Lever Act (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8 ff), as reenacted by Act Oct. 22, 1919, tit. 1, § 2 (41 Stat. 298), on the grounds, among others, of their repugnancy to the Constitution of the United States because of their vagueness and want of constitutional standard. On motion, the court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the case is here by direct appeal.
It presents the question under the Constitution which was this day decided in the Cohen Grocery Co. Case, 255 U.S. 81, 41 Sup. Ct. 298, 65 L. Ed. --, that is, the repugnancy of the provisions relied upon to the Constitution, and therefore, as a result of the ruling in that case, the decree below must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion; and
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice PITNEY and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS concur in the result.
Mr. Justice DAY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# Willamette Woolen Manufacturing Company v. Bank of British Columbia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
119 U.S. 191
Willamette Woolen Manufacturing Company v. Bank of British Columbia
Geo. H. Williams, for appellant, Willamette Woolen Manuf'g Co. J. N. Dolph
MILLER, 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
# Willard Dairy Corporation v. National Dairy Products Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 934
Willard Dairy Corporation v. National Dairy Products Corporation
Kenneth Thornton, for petitioner.
Richard F. Stevens, for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Justice Black, dissenting from the denial of certiorari:

## 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
# Willard Sutherland Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 489
Willard Sutherland Company v. United States
Argued: May 2, 1923. --- Decided: June 4, 1923
Messrs. Thomas R. Rutter, of New York City, and Gibbs L. Baker, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Rufus S. Day, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
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
# Will of Tadeusz Kościuszko

This is the original text of general's will.
I beg Mr Jefferson that in case I should die without will or testament he should bye out of my money so many Negros and free them, that the restant Sum should be Sufficient to give them education and provide for their maintenance. That is to say each should know before, the duty of a Cytyzen in the free Goverment, that he must defend his Country against foreign as well internal Enemies who would wish to change the Constitution for the vorst to inslave them by degree afterwards, to have good and human heart sensible for the sufferings of others, each must be maried and have 100 ackres of land, wyth instruments, Cattle for tillage and know how to manage and Gouvern it as well to know how to behave to neybourghs, always wyth kindness and ready to help them-to them selves frugal, to their Children give good education I mean as to the heart and the duty to the Country, in gratitude to me to make themselves happy as possible.
    T. Kosciuszko
    5.V.1798