OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Apis 1.

​APIS (Ἄπις). 1. A son of Phoroneus by the nymph Laodice, and brother of Niobe. He was king of Argos, established a tyrannical government, and called Peloponnesus after his own name Apia; but he was killed in a conspiracy headed by Thelxion and Telchis. (Apollod. i. 7. 6, ii. 1. § 1.) In the former of these passages Apollodorus states, that Apis, the son of Phoroneus, was killed by Aetolus; but this is a mistake arising from the confusion of our Apis, with Apis the son of Jason, ​who was killed by Aetolus during the funeral games celebrated in honour of Azanes. (Paus. v. l. § 6; Aetolus.)
# Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Apollas

​APOLLAS. [Apellas.]
# Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Apion, Ptolemaeus

​A'PION, PTOLEMAEUS. [Ptolemaeus Apion.]
# Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Apis 3.

​2. A son of Telchis, and father of Thelxion. He was king at Sicyon, and is said to have been such a powerful prince, that previous to the arrival of Pelops, Peloponnesus was called after him Apia. (Paus. ii. 5. § 5.)
# Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Apinius Tiro

​API'NIUS TIRO. [Tiro.]
# Democratic Achievement

* related portals: Speeches.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
In the impending campaign, we stand proudly on our splendid and unimpeachable record in peace and in war. Anybody, save a starch idiot, can successfully uphold the record from alpha to omega. It is wise, progressive, and patriotic. It has raised our country to an exceeding height of glory abroad, and an unprecedented prosperity at home. We confidently offer that record to the American people as an ernest of what we will do if continued in power.
Nineteen hundred years ago, by the highest authority a rule was prescribed for measuring men and things: judge a tree by its fruit. A good rule, a fair rule. We are willing to be measured by that standard. No brave man, no courageous party, will shrink from such a test. We cheerfully and serenely invite it. In his spectacular oration nominating General Grant in Chicago in 1880, Roscoe Conklin said: "General Grant's fame rests not alone on things written and things said, but also upon the arduous greatness of things done." That sentence fits the Democrats like a glove.
While in seven years since we came into possession of the executive and legislative branches of the government, Democrats have said and written many fine things. Our chief claims of the gratitude of our countrymen rests upon the arduous greatness of things done both at home and abroad. For years and years our Republican friends asserted that we did not have the capacity for constructive legislation. They admitted that in the days of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson we did some notable things, but that we had lost the power of initiative, and even if entrusted with power, we could accomplish nothing. Unfortunately, for a long time the people believed this malicious gibberish.
But in 1912 the American people gave the Democrats another opportunity, and under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson we swept the country from sea to sea. At the end of that historic contest we had the Presidency, the Senate by a working majority, and the House by an overwhelming majority. It is only sober truth to say that during the six years in which we controlled both the executive and legislative branches, that we put more constructive legislation on the statute books than was put upon the statute books in twentyfour years of Republican control.
A Democratic administration participated gloriously in the most colossal war of all time, and our brave soldiers, acting under direction of a Democratic administration, brought the war to a successful and glorious conclusion. Surely the things which we accomplished entitled the Democrats to a long lease of power. The outstanding teacher of our six years work is that we accomplished so much in so short a time. We did it by good team work. The Democratic Congress did its duty, the great Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, did his duty, and on the glorious record thus made, we confidently appeal to the voters of the land.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Cunningham v. Ashley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
55 U.S. 377
Cunningham v. Ashley
THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
The facts in the case were numerous and complicated, and a statement of the principal ones is given in the opinion of the court. It would not throw light upon any general principle if the reporter were to give a more particular account of the long series of acts which the respective parties considered to be the foundation of their respective titles. Nor would it be possible to explain the arguments of counsel, commenting on contradictory testimony, without a previous and detailed history of the transactions of twenty years. One of the briefs filed in the cause was upwards of seventy printed pages. The opinion of the court has given a selection of the leading facts in the case, so that its merits upon both sides can be clearly understood.
It was argued by Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Pike, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Bradley and Mr. Johnson, for the defendants in error.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

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

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Sutherland
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 100
Cunard Company v. Mellon

## 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
# Cunningham v. Brown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 1
Cunningham v. Brown
Argued: March 12, 1924. --- Decided: April 28, 1924
Mr. Edward F. McClennen, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

## 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
# Cronin v. Denver/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
192 U.S. 115
Cronin v. Denver
Argued: December 16, 1903. --- Decided: January 4, 1904
This action was brought in the police court of the city of Denver, state of Colorado, to collect $500, for the violation of § 746 of ordinance No. 101 of the city. Plaintiff in error was found guilty, and fined the sum of $50. On appeal to the county court he was also found guilty, and fined $100. The judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and thereupon the Chief Justice of the state allowed this writ of error.
The case involves the constitutionality of §§ 745 and 746 of the ordinance of the city of Denver. That question was passed upon in Cronin v. Adams, 192 U.S. 108, ante, 219, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 219, just decided, and on its authority the judgment is affirmed.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 4
Crook Company v. United States
Argued: Jan 12, 1926. --- Decided: Jan 25, 1926
Messrs. G. M. Brady, of Baltimore, Md., and Bynum E. Hinton, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Galloway, for the United States.
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
# Cronin v. Adams

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
192 U.S. 108
Cronin v. Adams
Argued: and submitted December 16, 1903. --- Decided: January 4, 1904
Mr. Milton Smith for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 108-111 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles R. Brock, Henry A. Lindsley, and Halsted L. Ritter for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Cronin v. Denver

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
192 U.S. 115
Cronin v. Denver
Argued: December 16, 1903. --- Decided: January 4, 1904
Mr. Milton Smith for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Charles R. Brock, Henry A. Lindsley, and Halsted L. Ritter for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Denver Union Stock Yard Company v. Producers Livestock Marketing Association

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Clark

## Dissenting Opinion

    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
356 U.S. 282
Denver Union Stock Yard Company v. Producers Livestock Marketing Association
Argued: March 10, 1958. --- Decided: April 28, 1958
Mr. Ashley Sellers, Washington, D.C., for petitioner Denver Union Stock Yard Co.
Mr. Neil Brooks, Washington, D.C., for petitioner Benson.
Mr. Hadlond P. Thomas, Salt Lake City, Utah, 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
# Denver Company v. City and County of Denver

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
250 U.S. 241
Denver Company v. City and County of Denver
Argued: April 23, 1919. --- Decided: June 2, 1919
Mr. E. N. Clark, of Denver, Colo., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. James A. Marsh and Norton Montgomery, both of Denver, Colo., for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Denver Railway Company v. Harris

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 597
Denver Railway Company v. Harris
[Syllabus from page 597 intentionally omitted]
This action was brought by James Harris, the defendant in error, against the Denver & Rio Grande Railway Company, a corporation of the state of Colorado, to recover damages for injuries which he alleges were sustained by him, in his person, by reason of an illegal and wrongful assault made by that company, acting by its servants and agents. The plea was not guilty. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $9,000. The judgment was affirmed in the supreme court of the territory, and has been brought here for review.
The defendant introduced no evidence, although its officers were the chief actors on the occasion when the plaintiff was injured. The case made by the latter, and other witnesses testifying in his behalf, is stated by the supreme court of the territory in the following extract from its opinion: 'The record discloses the fact that there was evidence on the trial in the lower court to the effect that about the tenth or twelfth of June, 1879, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company was in peaceable possession, by its agents and employes, of a certain railroad in the state of Colorado, running from Alamosa to the city of Pueblo, in that state; that at or about that date, and while the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company were so in possession of said railroad, the plaintiff in error, the Denver & Rio Grande Railway Company, by an armed force of several hundred men, acting as its agents and employes, and under its vice-president and assistant general manager, attacked with deadly weapons the agents and employes of said Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company having charge of said railroad, and forcibly drove them from the same, and took forcible possession thereof; that there was a demonstration of armed men all along the line of the railroad seized, and while this was being done, and the seizure was being made, the defendant in error, who was an employe of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, on said line of railroad, and while on the track of the road, and on a hand car thereon, in the line of his employment, was fired upon by men as he was passing, and seriously wounded and injured; that immediately upon the seizure of the railroad as aforesaid the plaintiff in error accepted it, and at once entered into possession thereof, and commenced and for a time continued to use and operate the same as its own.'
[Argument of Counsel from pages 599-604 intentionally omitted]
E. O. Wolcott, Chas. M. Da Costa, and C. A. Seward, for plaintiff in error.
John H. Knaebel, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts of the case 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
# Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company v. United States

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

## Concurring Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 485
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company v. United States
Argued: March 16, 1967. --- Decided: June 5, 1967
[Syllabus from pages 485-486 intentionally omitted]
William H. Dempsey, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Thomas D. Barr and Robert S. Rifkind, New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Denver Rio Grande Railroad Company v. Arizona & Colorado Railroad Company of New Mexico

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
233 U.S. 601
Denver Rio Grande Railroad Company v. Arizona & Colorado Railroad Company of New Mexico
Argued: April 22, 1914. --- Decided: May 11, 1914
Messrs. E. N. Clark, R. G. Lucas, and Joel F. Vaile for appellant.
Messrs. T. B. Catron and B. W. Ritter for appellee.
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
# Constitution of the Principality of Sealand

* Constitution of 1975
* Constitution of 1989
# Constitution of the Polish People's Republic

* The Constitutional Act of February 19, 1947
* Constitution of the Polish People's Republic (1952)
* Constitution of the Polish People's Republic (1976)
** April Novelization
** December Novelization
** Small Constitution of 1992
# Devere v. The Haverton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 145
Devere v. The Haverton
James Parker, for appellants.
James Parker, for appeallants.
James McConnell, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Devere v. The Haverton/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 145
Devere v. The Haverton
Assuming, as we must do, the total value to have been $6,057, the matter in dispute in this court is the difference between that value and the decree, namely, $3,028.50. We have therefore no jurisdiction. Dows v. Johnson, 110 U.S. 223, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 640. On the argument it was urged with much earnestness on behalf of appellants that it is within our power, upon the facts as found, to declare the Mary and Catherine entirely and solely in fault, and take away from the libelants what the circuit court awarded them, and that jurisdiction can be maintained by adding the amount the circuit court did not allow to the amount that it is suggested libelants might thus be deprived of. But as the claimants did not appeal, and as, if they had, the worst that could happen to libelants through our action on such cross-appeal would be the taking away of less than $5,000, the suggestion is entitled to no consideration. There is nothing in the cases of The Hesper, 122 U.S. 256, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1177, or The Alaska, 130 U.S. 201, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461, to the contrary. In the former, the district court awarded $8,000, while the circuit court gave only $4,200, but that was a case of salvage, in which the value of the property saved was over $100,000, and compensation was sought for the salvage in such sum proportioned to the value as the court might deem meet and reasonable. There was no finding of the circuit court that bound us, and in case of reversal a much larger sum than the jurisdictional amount might have been awarded, in addition to the sum which was. The difference between the judgments of the two courts in no respect represented the amount in dispute. Moreover, that case involved only the power of the circuit court on appeal, and not that of this court. In the latter case, the stipulation given to release the vessel libeled was for the sum of $25,000, for the benefit of five parties, each of whose claim for damages was $10,000, and some of whom might recover more than $5,000, so that the amount involved in each case, on the question of jurisdiction, was $10,000, which was of course sufficient. This appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

## 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
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Bacon, Nathaniel (fl.1640)

​BACON, Sir NATHANIEL (fl. 1640), painter, was the seventh son of Sir Nicholas Bacon, the first baronet created by James I; who, again, was eldest son of Sir Nicholas, the lord keeper. Walpole confounds the painter with his uncle. Sir Nathaniel of Stiffkey [see Bacon, Sir Nicholas, ad fin.], half-brother of Sir Francis, afterwards lord chancellor, who was sheriff of Norfolk in 1599, and knighted in 1604. The nephew entered Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in 1621, and graduated M.A. in 1628. He lived at Culford, in Suffolk, on an estate given to him by his father. There is a monument to him in the church there, and one to his wife, Jane Meautys, the widow of Sir William Cornwallis. He is there described as 'well skilled in the history of plants, and in delineating them with his pencil.' Walpole speaks of him as having 'really attained the perfection of a master.' He studied painting in Italy, but his style was rather Flemish than Italian. In Walpole's time there were works of his to be seen at Culford, where he lived, and at Gorhambury. At the latter place is a 'Cookmaid with dead fowls,' painted 'with great nature,' and a much-admired portrait of himself. The latter is engraved in the 'Anecdotes' of Walpole. He painted a 'Ceres' and a 'Hercules,' and left some paintings at Redgrave Hall, Suffolk, his father's seat. In a note to Walpole is a recipe for the preparation of a particular 'browne-pinke' colour used by the said Nathaniel, which was 'so very good' that a certain painter, 'P. Oliver, did highly commend it, and used none other to his dyinge day, wherewith, and with Indian lake, he made sure expressions of those deep and glowing shadows in those histories he copied after Titian, that no painting should appear more warm and fleshy than those of his hand'! He was created a knight of the Bath at the coronation of Charles I, and was living in 1648 (Wills at Bury St. Edmunds, ed. S. Tymms, Camden Soc. p. 216). He had three children, of whom Nicholas and Jane died unmarried, and Anne, his heiress, married, firstly, her cousin. Sir Thomas Meautys, and secondly. Sir Harbottle Grimston. From this second marriage are descended the earls of Verulam, the owners of the famous Gorhambury estate.
[Walpole' s Anecdotes, i. 190; Peacham on Limning, p. 126; Chalmers's Biog. Dict.; Kippis's Biog. Brit.; Redgrave's Dict. of English Painters; Nagler's Künstler-Lexicon,ed. 1878; R. Masters's Corpus Christi Coll. ed. Lamb, p. 456; Norfolk Archæology, viii. 152; Camden's Britannia, ed. Gough, ii. 82; Notes and Queries, 6th ser. x. 232.]
E. R.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Bacon, Philemon

​BACON, PHILEMON (d. 1666), captain in the royal navy, was made a lieutenant in 1661, and in 1664 was advanced to be captain of the Nonsuch. In 1665 he commanded the Oxford, a ship of the fifth rate, in the action of 3 June with the Dutch off Lowestoft; the following year he was in the Bristol, and led the van when the English and Dutch fleets engaged off the North Foreland on 1 June. Of the many brave men who were slain in that bloody and protracted battle, Captain Bacon was one of the first.
J. K. L.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Bacon, Thomas

​BACON, THOMAS (fl. 1336), judge, was most probably a member of the same family that produced Sir Nicholas and the great Francis Bacon; for he was possessed of property at Baconsthorpe and other places in Norfolk, which later belonged to the lord chancellor. He was a justice of the Common Pleas in the early years of Edward III's reign, and in this capacity was knighted by that king (Dugdale, Origines, 102). According to Foss, he was raised to the King's Bench in 1332, and certainly appears in this year as one of those appointed to try and ​terminate petitions from Gascony, Ireland, Wales, and the foreign isles in the parliament held at York. The same year, in conjunction with two others, he was deputed to assess the tallages for Norfolk and Suffolk. He seems to have continued a judge till 1336, and was possibly still living in the year 1339.
T. A. A.