OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# History of Delaware County

(Upload an image to replace this placeholder.)
HISTORY
OF
DELAWARE COUNTY,
AND
Border Wars of New York.
CONTAINING
A SKETCH OF THE EARLY SETTLEMENTS IN THE COUNTY,
AND
A HISTORY OE THE
LATE ANTI-RENT DIFFICULTIES IN DELAWARE,
WITH
Other Historical and Miscellaneous Matter,
NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED.
BY JAY GOULD.
ROXBURY:
KEENY & GOULD, PUBLISHERS. 1856.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year of our Lord 1866,
BY JAY GOULD,
In the District Court, for the Eastern District of New York.
Robb, Pile & M$^c$Elroy, Pr-. Lodge Street, Philada.
TO THE
HON. A. J. PARKER,
This work is respectfully Dedicated,
BY THE AUTHOR.
PREFACE.
It is usual for authors, in the preface to their productions, to cite to the reader all the good qualities of their writings, and especially those which their own imaginations suggest, and which, unless mentioned, might otherwise have been passed over unnoticed.
I shall then deviate from this ancient established usage of writers, for various, and to myself obvious reasons, the most prominent of which is, that I esteem that class of persons into whose hands this work may fall, as an intelligent and reading people, better prepared to pass judgment than myself, who, if they utter criticism, will base their opinions upon the merit of the work itself, aside from the self-eulogistic encomiums of the author. I do not claim ​that this work is free from error; perfection, in a history of this character, where much of the information to be relied upon is of an oral and indefinite nature, is an impossibility. I have been careful to weigh all the statements presented—to discriminate between truth and fiction—and have suppressed much apparently interesting matter, which lacked the proper authenticity, or conflicted with truth; still, doubtless, there is room for improvement.
I claim no honor for having been the tell-tale of the past. The having simply told what others have done, is far from implying, that had we been placed in the same situation, and affected by the same circumstances, we would have acted the same noble part. It is one thing to write, another to do:—"Give honor to whom honor is due." And if, after perusing what we have been enabled to glean of the history of the acts and actors of the past, you are enabled to discern in them anything noble—anything worthy of your admiration and emulation, then treasure up for the hardy and industrious pioneer a kind and grateful remembrance—then cherish in sincerity, long after the author ​has said his say, a fond appreciation of those Spartan sires, whose ashes are now mouldering in the tomb, and whose tongues have become silent and speechless, palsied by death.
I would take this opportunity of returning my sincere thanks to all who have interested themselves in furnishing material for the completion of this work.
THE AUTHOR.
CONTENTS.
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
# Gordon v. Ogden

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
28 U.S. 33
Gordon v. Ogden

## 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
# Gordon v. Texas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 369
Gordon v. Texas
See 355 U.S. 967, 78 S.Ct. 530.
Mr. B. R. Stewart, for appellant.
Mr. C. K. Richards, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas (Mr. Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
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
# Gordon v. Longest

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
41 U.S. 97
Gordon v. Longest

## 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
# Gordon v. Randle

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
189 U.S. 417
Gordon v. Randle
Argued: April 7, 1903. --- Decided: April 27, 1903
Messrs. S. Herbert Giesy and Holmes Conrad for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. J. Darlington 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
# Gordon v. Texas/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 369
Gordon v. Texas
The judgment is affirmed. Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131, 64 S.Ct. 464, 88 L.Ed. 605.

## 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
# How He Lied to Her Husband

The Preface
The Play
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 1950, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 73 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
# How Hurtful Was the Choice of Lot

Lot in Sodom by John Newton
Scripture reference: Gen 13:10
    How hurtful was the choice of Lot,
    Who took up his abode
    (Because it was a fruitful spot)
    With them who feared not God!
    A prisoner he was quickly made,
    Bereaved of all his store;
    And, but for Abraham’s timely aid,
    He had returned no more.
    Yet still he seemed resolved to stay
    As if it were his rest;
    Although their sins from day to day
    His righteous soul distressed.
    Awhile he stayed with anxious mind,
    Exposed to scorn and strife;
    At last he left his all behind,
    And fled to save his life.
    In vain his sons-in-law he warned,
    They thought he told his dreams;
    His daughters too, of them had learned,
    And perished in the flames.
    His wife escaped a little way,
    But died for looking back:
    Does not her case to pilgrims say,
    “Beware of growing slack?”
    Yea; Lot himself could ling’ring stand,
    Though vengeance was in view;
    ’Twas mercy plucked him by the hand,
    Or he had perished too.
    The doom of Sodom wilt be ours
    If to the earth we cleave;
    Lord, quicken all our drowsy pow’rs,
    To flee to Thee and live.
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
# How Far From Home

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Printed in Dowling, John, ed. The Judson Offering: Intended as a Token of Christian Sympathy With the Living and a Memento of Christian Affection for the Dead. Marked "Eleventh Thousand". New York: Lewis Colby & Co., 1848. Page 100.
I hear the rising tempest moan,
My failing limbs have weary grown,
The flowers are shut, the streams are dried,
The arid sands spread drear and wide,
The night-dews fall, the winds are high,
How far from home, O Lord, am I?
I would not come with hoards of gold,
With glittering gems, or cumbrous mould,
Nor dim my eyes with gathered dust
Of empty fame, or earthly trust;
But hourly ask, as lone I roam,
How far from home? how far from home?
Not far! Not far! The way is dark,
Frail hope hath dimm'd her glow-worm spark;
The trees are dead, beneath whose shade
My youth reclin'd, my childhood play'd;
Red lightnings streak the troubled sky,
How far from home, my God, am I?
Reach forth thy hand with pitying care,
And guide me through the latest snare;
Methinks e'en now its bursting beams
The radiance from thy casement streams;
No more I shed the pilgrim's tear,
I hear thy voice, my home is near.
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
# Grant v. United States (369 U.S. 401)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 401
Grant v. United States (369 U.S. 401)
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the appeal. DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 82 S.Ct. 654.

## 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
# Grant v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Grant 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.
* Grant v. United States (74 U.S. 331)
* Grant v. United States (227 U.S. 74)
* Grant v. United States (369 U.S. 401)
See also United States v. Grant.
# Grant v. United States (369 U.S. 401)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 401
Grant v. United States (369 U.S. 401)
Joseph W. Burns, for petitioners.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer and Joseph Kovner, for the United States.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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
# Grant v. Raymond

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
31 U.S. 218
Grant v. Raymond
[Syllabus from pages 218-220 intentionally omitted]
THIS case came before the court, in the first instance, on a certificate of division in opinion in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.
On inspecting the record, it appeared that on the trial of the cause in the circuit court, the counsel for the defendants had excepted to the decisions of the court on various matters which had been presented for the consideration of the court; and that a bill of exceptions had been sealed by the court on their motion.
The record proceeded to state, that the cause afterwards came on for argument on a motion for a new trial, when the opinions of the two judges of the circuit court were opposed upon questions, presented for the decision of the court, excepted to on the trial, as stated in the bill of exceptions: 'that upon the questions thus occurring before the court, the opinions of the said two judges were opposed; and upon request of the counsel for the plaintiffs, the points upon which the disagreement happened, were stated under the direction of the judges, and certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court.'
Mr Webster stated, that a question, preliminary to the argument of the case, was presented for the decision of the court. It was, whether the court would entertain the case as it came up from the circuit court on a division in that court on a motion for a new trial. This court had exercised their right to decide in cases where the opinions of the judges of the circuit court on questions of law had been opposed, when a motion for a new trial was before the court.
Mr Justice Story. In the cases referred to, the division of the court took place on the trial of the cause before the jury, as well as on the motion for a new trial.

## 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
# Grant v. United States (227 U.S. 74)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 74
Grant v. United States (227 U.S. 74)
Argued: and submitted January 6, 1913. --- Decided: January 20, 1913
Messrs. William A. Keener and Dallas Flannagan for appellants and plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 75 intentionally omitted]
Solicitor General Bullitt and Mr. Loring C. Christie for the United states.
Mr. Justice Hughes 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
# Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 v. Sax Enterprises

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 270
Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 v. Sax Enterprises
Argued: Nov. 10, 1958. --- Decided: Jan 12, 1959
See 359 U.S. 921, 79 S.Ct. 576.
Messrs. Arthur J. Goldberg and David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for the petitioners.
Marion E. Sibley, Miami Beach, Fla., and Thomas H. Anderson, Miami, Fla., for the respondents.
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
# Hotel Restaurant Employees' International Alliance Local No 122 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 437
Hotel Restaurant Employees' International Alliance Local No 122 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board
Argued: Jan. 9-12, 1942. --- Decided: March 2, 1942
Messrs. I. E. Goldberg and Joseph A. Padway, both of Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioners.
Messrs. N. S. Boardman, of Mineral Point, Wis., and Herman M. Knoeller, of Milwaukee, Wis., for respondents.
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
# Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 v. Sax Enterprises/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 270
Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 v. Sax Enterprises
Argued: Nov. 10, 1958. --- Decided: Jan 12, 1959
The judgments of the Supreme Court of Florida in these twelve consolidated cases must be reversed. They all concern the power of the courts of Florida to enjoin organizational picketing at twelve Florida resort hotels. After a series of decisions in regard to these and related cases, the Florida Supreme Court, in identical per curiam opinions, affirmed the issuance of permanent injunctions against the picketing.
The Florida courts were without jurisdiction to enjoin this organizational picketing, whether it was activity protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C § 157, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson, 325 U.S. 538, 65 S.Ct. 1373, 89 L.Ed. 1782, or prohibited by § 8(b)(4) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4), Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U.S. 485, 74 S.Ct. 161, 98 L.Ed. 228. See Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468, at 481, 75 S.Ct. 480, 488, 99 L.Ed. 546. This follows even though the National Labor Relations Board refused to take jurisdiction, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, 353 U.S. 20, 77 S.Ct. 604, 1 L.Ed.2d 613. The record does not disclose violence sufficient to give the State jurisdiction under United Automobile Workers, etc., v. Wisconsin Board, 351 U.S. 266, 76 S.Ct. 794, 100 L.Ed. 1162. In none of the twelve cases did the Florida trial courts make any finding of violence, and in some an affirmative finding of no violence was made.
Since it was stipulated below that a witness would testify that interstate commerce was involved in the Florida resort hotel industry, and since the parties asked that 'Final Decree be entered by the Chancellor upon the record as now made in the light of this Stipulation,' we find it unnecessary to remand for consideration of that question. See Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom, 358 U.S. 99, 79 S.Ct. 150. Other questions raised by respondents are either without merit or irrelevant to this disposition of the cases.
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
# Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Leedom

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 99
Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Leedom
Argued: Nov. 10, 1958. --- Decided: Nov 24, 1958
Mr. J. W. Brown, for petitioners.
Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
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
# Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Leedom/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 99
Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Leedom
Argued: Nov. 10, 1958. --- Decided: Nov 24, 1958
We believe that dismissal of the representation petition on the sole ground of the Board's 'long standing policy not to exercise jurisdiction over the hotel industry' as a class, is contrary to the principles expressed in Office Employes International Union, Local No. 11, AFLCIO v. National Labor Relations Board, 1957, 353 U.S. 313, 318-320, 77 S.Ct. 799, 802 803, 1 L.Ed.2d 846. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Judgment reversed and case remanded with directions.

## 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
# Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
190 U.S. 552
Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Company
Argued: May 4, 1903. --- Decided: June 1, 1903
Messrs. Frederick D. McKenney and Freedom Hutchinson for appellant.
Messrs. Roland Gray and John C. Gray for appellees.
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
# Hutchinson Ice Cream Company v. Iowa

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 153
Hutchinson Ice Cream Company v. Iowa
Argued: November 13, 1916. --- Decided: December 4, 1916
Mr. Walter Jeffreys Carlin for plaintiff in error in No. 50.
Messrs. R. L. Parrish and Walter Jeffreys Carlin for plaintiffs in error in No. 40.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 153-155 intentionally omitted]
Mr. George Cosson, Attorney General of Iowa, for defendant in error in no. 40.
Mr. William M. Hargest and Mr. Francis Shunk Brown, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, for defendant in error in No. 50.
Mr. Justice Brandeis 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
# Hutchinson v. City of Valdosta

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 303
Hutchinson v. City of Valdosta
Argued: January 24, 1913. --- Decided: February 24, 1913

## 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
# Hutchinson Pierce Company v. Loewy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 457
Hutchinson Pierce Company v. Loewy
Argued: April 29, 1910. --- Decided: May 16, 1910
Mr. Archibald Cox for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 457-459 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. L. L. Morrill and E. T. Fenwick for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller 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
# Hudson County Water Company v. McCarter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
209 U.S. 349
Hudson County Water Company v. McCarter
Argued: March 18, 19, 1908. --- Decided: April 6, 1908
Messrs. Gilbert Collins and Richard V. Lindabury for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 350-351 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Robert H. McCarter for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 352 intentionally omitted]
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