OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Carver v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Carver v. United States"
* 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.
* Carver v. United States (111 U.S. 609)
* Carver v. United States (160 U.S. 553)
* Carver v. United States (164 U.S. 694)
See also United States v. Carver.
# New York Herald/1868/Wills Admitted and Letters of Administration Granted

Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer (1815-1866), and others, in the New York Herald on December 27, 1868.
Surrogate Court.
Wills Admitted and Letters of Administration Granted
Before Surrogate Tucker.
Wills admitted - Sarah Lewis, Sarah Jane Barker, John H. Woodgate, Horace F. Farrington, Mary Fanning, James Gillespie, Louis A. Whitaker. Patrick Healy, Mary Wahl, Joseph E. Ebling, Charles Stet- nick, Sarah Goodstein, Catherine Corley, Asa Clark and Sheidon Burwell. Letters of administration were granted on the estates of Honora Mahoney, William Melis, August Geiger, Charles McCue, Albert Kruger, William Gates, Louis Gyette, Thomas Johnston, Ludwig Milham, David Patalla, Francis Stewart, William Harp. George A. Harriot, John C. Helff, Oscar Lindauer, Ellen Muihall, John Meehan, David G. Wendell, Brudget McCune, Sopre Miller, George Krang, Anthony I. Robertson
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Carver v. United States (164 U.S. 694)

Supreme Court of the United States
164 U.S. 694
CARVER v. UNITED STATES
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas
No. 588. Submitted: Dec. 15, 1896 --- Decided: Jan. 4, 1897

## Linked case(s)

160 U.S. 553
In a trial for murder, if the declarations of the deceased are offered, the fact that she had received extreme unction has a tendency to show that she must have known that she was in articulo mortis, and it is no error to admit evidence of it.
Where the whole or a part of a conversation has been put in evidence by the government on the trial of a person accused of the commission of crime, the other party is entitled to explain, vary or contradict it.
When the dying declarations of the deceased are admitted on the trial of a person accused of the crime of murder, statements made by the deceased in apparent contradiction to those declarations are admissible.
THIS was a writ of error to review the conviction of the plaintiff in error for the murder of one Anna Maledon at Muskogee, in the Creek Nation of the Indian Territory. The conviction was a second one for the same offence, the first having been set aside by this court upon the ground that improper evidence had been received of an alleged dying declaration. 160 U.S. 553.
The evidence tended to show that Carver, a man about twenty-five years of age, was grossly intemperate in his habits, and upon the day the homicide took place had been drinking a mixture of hard cider and Jamaica ginger, and was so intoxicated that he could hardly walk; that deceased, who had been his mistress for several years, had agreed to meet him in the evening at a certain mill crossing in Muskogee. They met at about half-past eight, when he soon began to threaten her that he would, before daylight, kill her and one Walker, of [p695] whom he appeared to have been jealous. He was armed with a revolver and his conduct indicated that he was crazed with liquor. During his walk with the deceased, he met a man whom he drove off at the point of his pistol, and amused himself by firing it off at a lot of cattle, which were within range. Meeting one Crittenden, the deceased, believing that Carver was unfit to care for her and accompany her, asked Crittenden, with whom she was acquainted, to take her home. Crittenden started with them, when Carver got out his pistol again, flourished it about and fired it off twice, once in the air and once in the ground. After walking some fifty yards or more Carver again took out his pistol, flourished it around, and, either intentionally or accidentally, shot deceased in the back and mortally wounded her.
Mr. William M. Cravens and Mr. J. Warren Reed for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendants in error.
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
# Ex parte Jones

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States
* sister projects: Wikidata item
United States Supreme Court
164 U.S. 691
Ex parte Jones
v.
Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 819, and more recently to railways chartered under acts of congress (Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1, 5 Sup. Ct. 1113), even since the court of appeals act was passed (Railroad Co. v. Amato, 144 U.S. 465, 12 Sup. Ct. 740; Railway Co. v. Harris, 158 U.S. 326, 15 Sup. Ct. 843). But by the act of 1882, and more recently by section 4 of the acts of March 3, 1887, and August 13, 1888, the privi-
[693]
lege of suing and being sued under this clause was taken away from national banks by the following language: 'Sec. 4. That all national banking associtions established under the laws of the United States shall, for the purposes of all actions by or against them, real, personal, or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens of the states in which they are respectively located; and in such cases the circuit and district courts shall not have jurisdiction, other than such as they would have in cases between individual citizens of the same states.' In Bank v. Cooper, 120 U.S. 778, 7 Sup. Ct. 777, it was held by this court that, under the act of 1882, which was similar in its terms, an action against a national bank could not be removed to the federal court 'unless a similar suit could be entertained by the same court by or against a state bank in like situation with the national bank. Consequently, so long as the act of 1882 was in force, nothing in the way of jurisdiction could be claimed by a national bank because of the source of its incorporation. A national bank was by that statute placed before the law in this respect the same as a bank not organized under the laws of the United States.' See, also. Whittemore v. Bank, 134 U.S. 524, 10 Sup. Ct. 592; Petri v. Bank, 142 U.S. 644, 12 Sup. Ct. 325. The section above cited from the act of 1888 undoubtedly deprives these banks of the privilege of suing or being sued, except in cases where diversity of citizenship would authorize an action to be brough; and in such cases the decree of the court of appeals is final. In this case the original bill averred the complainant to be a citizen of Pennsylvania and the defendant to be a national bank, duly established under the laws of the United States, having its place of business at Boston, and a citizen of the state of Massachusetts. As the bill was filed after the act of 1888 took effect, it must be deemed to be a suit dependent upon citizenship alone. But, even if another ground were developed in the course of the proceedings, the judgment of the court of appeals would be final if the jurisdiction of the circuit court were originally invoked solely upon the ground of
[694]
citizenship. Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138, 14 Sup. Ct. 35; Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U.S. 408, 16 Sup. Ct. 34. The petition for mandamus must be denied.

## 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
# McClure's Magazine

* related portals: Periodicals
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, Commons category, Wikidata item

## Volumes

* June 1893 - November 1893
* December 1893 - May 1894
* June 1894 - November 1894
* December 1894 - May 1895
* June 1895 - November 1895
* December 1895 - May 1896
* June 1896 - October 1896, 5 issues only
* November 1896 - April 1897
* May 1897 - October 1897
* November 1897 - April 1898
* May 1898 - October 1898
* November 1898 - April 1899
* May 1899 - October 1899
* November 1899 - April 1900
* May 1900 - October 1900
* November 1900 - April 1901
* May 1901 - October 1901
* November 1901 - April 1902
* May 1902 - October 1902
* November 1902 - April 1903
* May 1903 - October 1903
* November 1903 - April 1904
* May 1904 - October 1904
* November 1904 - April 1905
* May 1905 - October 1905
* November 1905 - April 1906
* May 1906 - October 1906
* November 1906 - April 1907
* May 1907 - October 1907
* November 1907 - April 1908
* May 1908 - October 1908
* November 1908 - April 1909
* May 1909 - October 1909
* November 1909 - April 1910
* May 1910 - October 1910
* November 1910 - April 1911
* May 1911 - October 1911
* November 1911 - April 1912
* May 1912 - October 1912
* November 1912 - April 1913
* May 1913 - October 1913
* November 1913 - April 1914
* May 1914 - October 1914
* November 1914 - April 1915
* May 1915 - October 1915
* November 1915 - April 1916
* May 1916 - October 1916
* November 1916 - April 1917
* May 1917 - October 1917
* November 1917 - December 1918 (14 issues)
* January 1919 - December 1919
* January 1920 - December 1920
* January 1921 - September 1921 (7 issues)
* March 1922 - December 1922
* January 1923 - December 1923
* January 1924 - April 1924 (4 issues)
* May 1924 - August 1924 (4 issues)
* ("New Series") May 1925 - October 1925
* ("New Series") November 1925 - January 1926
* January 1927 - June 1927
* July 1927 - December 1927
* January 1928 - June 1928
* July 1928 - December 1928
* January 1929 - March 1929
# Phantom Fingers (Mearson)

Before the horror-filled eyes of a terrified audience, Augustin Arnold, the matinee idol of New York City, is strangled to death on the stage of the Grand Theater, by invisible hands, whose unseen fingers have wrapped themselves about his neck. The understudy, who takes up the murdered man's part, is throttled in the same mysterious manner and comes within an ace of losing his life.
Then the messages of the phantom murderer to Betty Sargent, the leading lady, are discovered. They are signed, "An Unknown Admirer", and they set Steve Muirhead, detective-adventurer, on the phantom trail that twists its way mysteriously through New York's theatrical underworld.
With gripping intensity, the author projects the denouement of this phantom murder mystery. The action of the tale fascinates and thrills when it sweeps onward to a powerful climax and an illuminating end.
—From the dust cover.
Phantom Fingers
Phantom Fingers
BY
Lyon Mearson Author of “The Whisper on the Stair,” “Footsteps in the Dark.”
New York The Macaulay Company
Copyright, 1927, By Lyon Mearson
First Printing, July, 1928. Second Printing, August, 1928.
Printed in the United States of America
To all those among my friends who think that I should have inscribed a book to them long ago.
* 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
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 1966, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 57 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
# Starr v. United States (164 U.S. 627)

Supreme Court of the United States
164 U.S. 627
STARR v. UNITED STATES
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas
No. 389. Submitted: Oct. 23, 1896 --- Decided: Jan. 4, 1897

## Linked case(s)

153 U.S. 614
The objection that the warrant of arrest of the plaintiff in error purports to be issued by a "Commissioner U.S. Court, Western District of Arkansas" instead of a "commissioner of the Circuit Court," as required by statute, is without merit.
The ruling in Hickory v. United States, 160 U.S. 408, and the similar ruling in Alberty v. Uhited States, 162 U.S. 499, that it is misleading for a court to charge a jury that, from the fact of absconding they may infer the fact of guilt, and that flight is a silent admission by the defendant that he is unable to face the case against him, are reaffirmed, and such an instruction in this case is held to be fatally defective.
[p628] THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. A. H. Garland for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Solicitor General for defendants in error.
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
# Letter of the two sorries

* information about this edition
* related portals: Letters
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item
The letter of the two sorries was the letter delivered by the United States Ambassador Joseph Prueher to Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan of the People's Republic of China to defuse the "spy plane crisis" in April 2001. Upon the collision between the U.S. surveillance aircraft and the Chinese fighter, the U.S. plane made an emergency landing on Chinese territory, while the Chinese fighter pilot and his plane were lost. The delivery of the letter led to the release of the U.S. crew from Chinese custody, as well as the return of the disassembled plane.
Dear Mr. Minister:
On behalf of the United States government, I now outline steps to resolve this issue.
Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft. Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss.
Although the full picture of what transpired is still unclear, according to our information, our severely crippled aircraft made an emergency landing after following international emergency procedures. We are very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance, but very pleased the crew landed safely. We appreciate China's efforts to see to the well-being of our crew.
In view of the tragic incident and based on my discussions with your representative, we have agreed to the following actions:
Both sides agree to hold a meeting to discuss the incident. My government understands and expects that our aircrew will be permitted to depart China as soon as possible.
The meeting would start April 18, 2001.
The meeting agenda would include discussion of the causes of the incident, possible recommendations whereby such collisions could be avoided in the future, development of a plan for prompt return of the EP-3 aircraft, and other related issues. We acknowledge your government's intention to raise U.S. reconnaissance missions near China in the meeting.
Sincerely, Joseph W. Prueher
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
# Allen v. United States (164 U.S. 492)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case that, amongst other things, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. The Court affirmed Allen's murder conviction, after having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime.
Such an instruction became known as an Allen charge and is given when, after deliberation, a jury reports that it is deadlocked and unable to decide on a verdict. Because it is used to dislodge jurors from entrenched positions, the Allen charge is sometimes referred to as the "dynamite charge" or the "hammer charge."
United States Supreme Court
164 U.S. 492
Allen v. United States
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas
No. 371 --- Decided December 7, 1896.

## Linked case(s)

150 U.S. 551 157 U.S. 675

## Syllabus

There is no error in an instruction on a trial for murder that the intent necessary to constitute malice aforethought need not have existed for any particular time before the act of killing, but that it may spring up at the instant, and may be inferred from the fact of killing.
The language objected to in the sixth assignment of error is nothing more than the statement, in another form, of the familiar proposition that every man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his own act.
Mere provocative words, however aggravating, are not sufficient to reduce a crime from murder to manslaughter.
To establish a case of justifiable homicide it must appear that the assault made upon the prisoner was such as would lead a reasonable person to believe that his life was in peril.
There was no error in the instruction that the prisoner was bound to retreat as far as-he could before slaying his assailant. Beard v. United States, [p497] 158 U.S. 550, and Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, distinguished from this case.
Flight of the accused is competent evidence against him, as having a tendency to establish guilt; and an instruction to that effect in substance is not error, although inaccurate in some other respects which could not have misled the jury.
The refusal to charge that where there is a probability of innocence there Is a reasonable doubt of guilt is not error, when the court has already charged that the jury could not find the defendant guilty unless they were satisfied from the testimony that the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
THE facts constituting the offence for which Allen was indicted are set forth in Allen v. United States, 150 U.S. 551, and 157 U.S. 675. The rulings passed upon in the present case are stated in the opinion of the court.
No appearance for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Solicitor General for defendants in error.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.
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
# The Evening Independent/1930/Sailed Today for Buenos Aires

Weldon Earl Borland (1906-2002) in the The Evening Independent on 29 November 1930.
Sailed Today for Buenos Aires.
Weldon E. Borland, of Akron, formerly of Massillon, son of Mrs. Alberta Borland of Wales road, NE, and nephew of Mrs. John Beadle of Walnut road, SE, left Thursday evening tor New York City, with the Flying Squadron, a group of men from the Goodyear company of Akron, and sailed today for Buenos Aires, where they will be instructors in the new Goodyear factory in that city. Those going in the contingent are expected to remain for six months and have spent the past three months in study preparing for the work. Including the acquiring of Spanish. Mr. Borland spent Thanksgiving in Massillon and was a guest at a dinner given by his grandmother, Mrs. Jennie Miller, of Walnut road, SE. W. E. Moody, son of the Reverend Mr. Moody, of Bowdil, is also a member of the party.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# The Evening Independent

* related portals: Newspapers
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item
The Independent and the The Evening Independent of Massillon, Ohio were established in 1863.
Content exists for this periodical, though at this stage it is not specifically organised beyond a basic hierarchy.
The pages listed below are an automatically generated listing.
Special:PrefixIndex/The Evening Independent/
# Argosy All-Story Weekly/1921
## February
### February 5

Internet Archive identifier: argosy-v-130n-03-1921-02-05-ifc-ads-toc-ibc-bc-beb-rev-2

### February 26
## March
### March 26
## April
### April 16

Internet Archive identifier: ArgosyV133N0119210416

### April 30
## May
### May 28
## June
### June 18
## July
### July 23
## August
### August 27
## September
### September 24
## October
### October 29
## November
### November 19
## December
### December 24

HathiTrust identifier: osu.32435071750657
# Acers v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
164 U.S. 388
ACERS v. UNITED STATES
Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas
No. 393. Submitted: Oct. 22, 1896 --- Decided: Nov. 30, 1896
The exceptions to this charge are taken in the careless way which prevails in the Western District of Arkansas.
In a trial for assault with intent to kill, a charge which distinguishes between the assault and the intent to kill, and charges, specifically that each must be proved, that the intent can only be found from the circumstances of the transaction, pointing out things which tend to disclose the real intent, is not objectionable.
[p389] There is no error in defining a deadly weapon to be "a weapon with which death may be easily and readily produced; anything, no matter what it is, whether it is made for the purpose of destroying animal life, or whether it was not made by man at all, or whether it was made by him for some other purpose, if it is a weapon, or if it is a thing by which death can be easily and readily produced, the law recognizes it as a deadly weapon."
With reference to the matter of justifying injury done in self-defence by reason of the presence of danger, a charge which says that it must be a present danger, "of great injury to the person injured, that would maim him, or that would be permanent in its character, or that might produce death," is not an incorrect statement.
The same may be said of the instructions in reference to self-defence based on an apparent danger.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. C. Garland for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendants in error.
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
# Brown v. United States (164 U.S. 221)

Supreme Court of the United States
164 U.S. 221
BROWN v. UNITED STATES
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas
No. 381. Submitted: Oct. 23, 1896 --- Decided: Nov. 16, 1896

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brewer

## Linked case(s)

150 U.S. 93 159 U.S. 100
Evidence of the reputation of a man for truth and veracity in the neighborhood of his home is equally competent to affect his credibility as a witness, whether it is founded upon dispassionate judgment, or upon warm admiration for constant truthfulness, or natural indignation at habitual falsehood; and whether his neighbors are virtuous or immoral in their own lives. Such considerations may affect the weight, but do not touch the competency, of the evidence offered to impeach or to support his testimony.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendants in error.
No appearance for plaintiff in error
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