OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States/Statute involved

Statute Involved
Section 7607 of Title 26 U.S.C. provides:
The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant to the Commissioner, and agents, of the Bureau of Narcotics of the Department of the Treasury, and officers of the customs (as defined in section 401(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; 19 U.S.C., Sec. 1401(1)), may—
(1) carry firearms, execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued under the authority of the United States, and
(2) make arrests without warrant for violations of any law of the United States relating to narcotic drugs (as defined in section 4731) or marihuana (as defined in section 4761) where the violation is committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or where such person has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committeed or is committing such violation.
layout 2
# Brig Collenberg

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 170
Brig Collenberg
This was a libel in the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, filed by John S. Lawrence against the brig Lieutenant Admiral Collenbery, for damages suffered by a cargo of fruit shipped at Palermo for New York and injured by decay on the voyage. The owners of the vessel denied the right of the consignee of the cargo to recover the damages he claimed, and filed a cross-libel for freight, primage, general and particular average. The District Court dismissed the libel in the first suit, and in the other made a decree in favor of the ship-owners for the freight, &c. This was affirmed by the Circuit Court, and the consignee took appeals to this court in both cases.
The facts are specially stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Clifford.

## 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
# Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States/Statement/The opinion of the court of appeals

II. The Opinion of the Court of Appeals
The court of appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed the convictions. The court concluded that the arrest of each petitioner had been based on information not known to be reliable, and hence was without probable cause, but held that the illegality of the arrests did not render inadmissible the voluntary confessions, or preclude the agents from using information obtained from the pre-confession statements as leads for tracking down the criminals (R. 135–145).
layout 2
# Brief notes of the voyage to WA on the convict ship Norwood arrived Fremantle

* related portals: Journals.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Diary notes, believed to be those of William Sykes
​On Board the 2$^d$ of April Sailed from Portland the 18 head wind ruff night the Sattedy night before Easter and Easter Settedy night Caut A Shark on the 21st of May A Death the same Day A funeral the 22nd A ship Came up and took Letters the 23 A good Brees of wind 24 A Birth on the 26th Crossed the line the same day 26 wich was Sunday
the outlandicc Ocan the tropic the medary Island the cannary Island the peak of tinereff along the coast of affrecca and other peak mountains
8 days brees + Stedy wind 2 June good wind 3 making prepration for ruff wether 4 opisit Eugener Brasiel out of the tropict 6 fair wind not much of it
7 niggers friday night
​8 Strong wind boult in the flihg jib broke out 9–10 good sailing (illegible text) 11 Strong not in faver 14 fare wind squaly alberttroses ollegok cape pigen and other Birds 19 wind in faver but very could dail and rain very strong sea rowling dreams very rough night 20 dull with strong swell on 21 Birth died 22 wet miseruble day with fair wind 23 fare wind going well but squalls 24 and 25 changuble 26 ackedent with the Boiler and too men scolded July 1 sailing very fast with squall until the 9 and then calm and dull
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
# Carter v. Gear

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
197 U.S. 348
Carter v. Gear
Argued: March 3, 1905. --- Decided: April 3, 1905
This was a writ of error to review a judgment of the supreme court of the Territory of Hawaii denying a writ of prohibition.
The facts of the case are substantially as follows: On July 27, 1904, one Low, as next friend of Annie T. K. Parker, a minor, filed a petition before the defendant, George D. Gear, judge of the first judicial circuit, in probate, at chambers, asking for the removal of Alfred W. Carter, plaintiff in error, as guardian of the estate of said minor. He had been originally appointed such guardian September 29, 1899. The petition was entitled 'In the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Territory of Hawaii. In Probate. At Chambers,' and was in fact filed before the circuit judge sitting at chambers. A demurrer was interposed to the petition upon the ground that the circuit judge had no jurisdiction of the proceedings, for the reason that the statute conferring judicial powers upon the judges at chambers was in conflict with the organic act of the territory.
The demurrer was overruled, and the jurisdiction of the court sustained, apparently with some doubt, by the circuit judge.
This petition for a writ of prohibition was then filed by Carter in the supreme court of the territory against the defendant, Gear, as circuit judge, and Low, the next friend of Annie T. K. Parker, praying that the said circuit judge be prohibited from taking further cognizance of the petition for the removal of Carter, or proceeding therein until the further order of the supreme court. After a full hearing the supreme court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, and dismissed the petition.
Messrs. Joseph J. Darlington and William F. Mattingly for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 349-350 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John S. Low, guardian, in propria persona.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 350-352 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Brown 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
# Carter v. Hawaii

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
200 U.S. 255
Carter v. Hawaii
Argued: and submitted December 13, 1905. --- Decided: January 8, 1906
Messrs. Sidney M. Ballon, Benj. L. Marx, and J. J. Darlington for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Emil C. Peters and Fred W. Milverton for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# Carter v. Illinois

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 173
Carter v. Illinois
Argued: Nov. 15, 1946. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1946
Mr. Stephen A. Mitchell, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. William C. Wines, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Carter v. Greenhow

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
114 U.S. 317
Carter v. Greenhow
Wm. L. Royall, D. H. Chamberlain, Wm. M. Evarts, and Wager Swayne, for plaintiff in error.
A. H. Ga land, R. T. Merrick, and F. S. Blair, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
MATTHEWS, 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
# Carter v. Hawaii/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
200 U.S. 255
Carter v. Hawaii
Argued: and submitted December 13, 1905. --- Decided: January 8, 1906
This is a proceeding to establish the plaintiffs' rights to a several fishery of the kind described in Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U.S. 154, 48 L. ed. 916, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, and comes here under the same circumstances as that case did. The fishery in question is a sea fishery within the reef in Waialae Iki, island of Oahu, and is claimed by metes and bounds in the complaint. The plaintiffs are owners of the adjacent land under a royal patent following upon an award of the Land Commission, and the only difference between this case and the former one is that in this, the fishery is not described in the royal patent, and that, apart from the question of prescription, upon which we shall say nothing, the plaintiffs have to rely upon the statutes alone. They offered evidence at the trial that, before the action of the King in 1839, those under whom the plaintiffs claim title had enjoyed, from time immemorial, rights similar to those set out in the statutes, and also that they had been in continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the konohiki right for sixty years. They offered, in short, to prove that their predecessor in title was within the statutes, and therefore owned the fishery, it not being disputed that if he did, the plaintiffs own it now. The judge rejected the evidence, and entered judgment for the defendant, and, on exceptions, this judgment and that in Damon v. Hawaii were sustained at the same time, in one opinion, by the supreme court. 14 Haw. 465.
We deem it unnecessary to repeat the ground of our intimation in the former case, that the statutes there referred to created vested rights. We simply repeat that, in our opinion, such was their effect. The fact that they neither identified the specific grantees nor established the boundaries is immaterial when their purport as a grant or confirmation is decided. It is enough that they afforded the means of identification, and that presumably the boundaries can be fixed by reference to existing facts, or the application of principles which have been laid down in cases of more or less similar kind.
The omission of the plaintiffs' predecessor in title to establish his right to the fishery before the Land Commission does not prejudice their case. See Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. 63. That commission was established to determine the title to lands as against the Hawaiian government. In practice it treated the fisheries as not within its jurisdiction, and it would seem to have been right in its view. See Akeni v. Wong Ka Mau, 5 Haw. 91.
Judgment reversed.

## 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
# Caperton v. Bowyer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 216
Caperton v. Bowyer

## 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
# Capital City Dairy Company v. Ohio

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
183 U.S. 238
Capital City Dairy Company v. Ohio
Argued: April 19, 22, 1901. --- Decided: January 6, 1902
Mr. Thomas Ewing Steele for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Edmond B. Dillon and John M. Sheets for defendant in error.
Mr. 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
# Capital Service v. National Labor Relations Board

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 501
Capital Service v. National Labor Relations Board
Argued: April 6, 1954. --- Decided: May 17, 1954
Mr.
Carl M. Gould, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Big Sur/Chapter 2

Layout 2
2
AND I LOOK AROUND THE DISMAL CELL, there’s my hopeful rucksack all neatly packed with everything necessary to live in the woods, even unto the minutest first aid kit and diet details and even a neat little sewing kit cleverly reinforced by my good mother (like extra safety pins, buttons, special sewing needles, little aluminum scissors)—The hopeful medal of St. Christopher even which she’d sewn on the flap—The survival kit all in there down to the last little survival sweater and handkerchief and tennis sneakers (for hiking)—But the rucksack sits hopefully in a strewn mess of bottles all empty, empty poorboys of white port, butts, junk, horror. . . . . “One fast move or I’m gone,” I realize, gone the way of the last three years of drunken hopelessness which is a physical and spiritual and metaphysical hopelessness you cant learn in school no matter how many books on existentialism or pessimism you read, or how many jugs of vision-producing Ayahuasca you drink, or Mescaline take, or Peyote goop up with—That feeling when you wake up with the delirium tremens with the fear of eerie death dripping from your ears like those special heavy cobwebs spiders weave in the hot countries, the feeling of being a bentback mudman monster groaning underground in hot steaming mud pulling a long hot burden nowhere, the feeling of standing ankledeep in hot boiled pork blood, ugh, of being up to your waist in a giant pan of greasy brown dishwater not a trace of suds left in it—The face of yourself you see in the mirror with its expression of unbearable anguish so hagged and awful with sorrow you cant even cry for a thing so ugly, so lost, no connection ​whatever with early perfection and therefore nothing to connect with tears or anything: it’s like William Seward Burroughs’ “Stranger” suddenly appearing in your place in the mirror—Enough! “One fast move or I’m gone” so I jump up, do my headstand first to pump blood back into the hairy brain, take a shower in the hall, new T-shirt and socks and underwear, pack vigorously, hoist the rucksack and run out throwing the key on the desk and hit the cold street and walk fast to the nearest little grocery store to buy two days of food, stick it in the rucksack, hike thru lost alleys of Russian sorrow where bums sit head on knees in foggy doorways in the goopy eerie city night I’ve got to escape or die, and into the bus station—In a half hour into a bus seat, the bus says “Monterey” and off we go down the clean neon hiway and I sleep all the way, waking up amazed and well again smelling sea air the bus driver shaking me “End of the line, Monterey.”—And by God it is Monterey, I stand sleepy in the 2 A.M. seeing vague little fishing masts across the street from the bus driveway. Now all I’ve got to do to complete my escape is get 14 miles down the coast to the Raton Canyon bridge and hike in.
# Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 523
Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco
Argued: Feb. 15, 1967. --- Decided: June 5, 1967
[Syllabus from pages 523-524 intentionally omitted]
Marshall W. Krause, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Albert W. Harris, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Mr. 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
# Cambrian Geology and Paleontology

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 4 Volumes
* Volume 1 (1910)
* Volume 2 (1914)
* Volume 3 (1916)
* Volume 4 (1924)
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 1927, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 96 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
# Cambria Iron Company v. Ashburn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
118 U.S. 54
Cambria Iron Company v. Ashburn
Argued: April 19, 1886. ---
Wm. M. Ramsey, Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., and Mortimer Matthews, for appellants, Cambria Iron Co. C. B. Matthews, for appellee, Thomas Q. Ashburn, Trustee, etc.
WAITE, C. J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Care and Management of Rabbits/Chapter 23

XXIII
PEDIGREES
PEDIGREES
A pedigree is merely a systematic record of the ancestry of a given specimen. As originally planned the pedigree system was of great benefit and value in arriving at the breeding value of the individual. Some form of pedigreeing is practised by all live stock breeders, most of whom have a stud book or breed book in which such records are kept.
The official charged with the keeping of these records is generally the secretary of the breed association. In the case of rabbits, several of the different breeds have their own records, but the National Breeders and Fanciers Association, which is made up of all classes of breeders, maintains the breed books which are generally recognized as authoritative.
Pedigree blanks may be purchased of any supply dealer. They are a simple affair, ​merely containing a space for the name of the animal, the date of its birth, to whom sold, by whom, and the names of its sire and dam, grandsires and grandams. At least three generations are necessary before the animal can be registered and where it is possible to obtain more of a pedigree, so much the better.
The value of the pedigree is still greater if it contains some sort of a record of the performance of each individual such as show records or breeding records, but it is hard for one to obtain such a minute record from the average breeder. In other branches of live stock breeding you will find more careful records kept along this line.
In keeping an intelligent pedigree record it is necessary to give each rabbit in your breeding hutches a name or a number and to keep a record of the performance of each individual. There is such a demand for pedigrees at the present time that many breeders are merely "feeding the public" with pedigrees with high sounding names and passing off inferior stock. But where the rules of the National ​Association are followed and the pedigree has something besides a name behind it, it is the most valuable aid known in making progress in the matter of intelligent breeding.
All rabbits should be marked in order to prevent confusion or mistake. There are a number of rabbit markers on the market, ranging from ear tags to stencil tattooing outfits. It is needless to say that a number stenciled in the rabbit's ear with indelible ink is better than anything else. It is there to stay and there is no opportunity of fraud.
Many breeders have their own pedigree blanks printed, and if you buy from a recognized breeder you will get these blanks containing the pedigree of your animals. A pedigree, after all, is worth only the record of the blood in your stock, and if that blood is the best in fame and performance then the value of your pedigrees will be increased manyfold.
But keep a record, else you work around in a circle or in the dark. Intelligent records are the best aid of the careful breeder.