OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Statutes in Force/Guide to the Edition/1 September 1983

STATUTES IN FORCE
GUIDE TO THE EDITION
dated 1st August 1981
ISBN 0 11 804144 4
ADDITIONAL NOTE
1st September 1983
(to be filed immediately following the Guide)
CITATION OF ACTS
It is recommended that in written references to Acts and Measures published in Statutes in Force the title should be followed by both the chapter number and the letters SIF, with the numbers of the relevant group and sub-group. For example, the Road Traffic Act 1972 may be referred to as "Road Traffic Act 1972 (c.20, SIF 107:1)".
October 1983
LONDON: HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
This work is licensed under the United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0.
    You are free to:
   * copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
   * adapt the Information;
   * exploit the Information commercially and non-commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.
    You must, where you do any of the above:
   * acknowledge the source of the Information in your product or application by including or linking to any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence.
   * If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution statement, you must use the following:
    Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
    This license does NOT cover:
   * personal data in the Information;
   * Information that has not been accessed by way of publication or disclosure under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;
   * departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;
   * military insignia;
   * third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;
   * other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade marks, and design rights; and
   * identity documents such as the British Passport.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Statutes in Force/Lists of Groups and Acts and Measures

* File divider
* Alphabetical Lists of Groups, Acts and Measures up to 1st January 1994
* Chronological Lists of Acts and Measures up to 1st January 1994
This work is licensed under the United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0.
    You are free to:
   * copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
   * adapt the Information;
   * exploit the Information commercially and non-commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.
    You must, where you do any of the above:
   * acknowledge the source of the Information in your product or application by including or linking to any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence.
   * If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution statement, you must use the following:
    Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
    This license does NOT cover:
   * personal data in the Information;
   * Information that has not been accessed by way of publication or disclosure under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;
   * departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;
   * military insignia;
   * third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;
   * other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade marks, and design rights; and
   * identity documents such as the British Passport.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Statutes in Force/Guide to the Edition/File divider

This is the text that appears on the file divider, except for the logo.
GUIDE
Statutes in Force
Official Revised Edition
GUIDE TO THE EDITION
AND
ADDITIONAL NOTES, ARRANGEMENT ETC.
This work is licensed under the United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0.
    You are free to:
   * copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
   * adapt the Information;
   * exploit the Information commercially and non-commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.
    You must, where you do any of the above:
   * acknowledge the source of the Information in your product or application by including or linking to any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence.
   * If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution statement, you must use the following:
    Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
    This license does NOT cover:
   * personal data in the Information;
   * Information that has not been accessed by way of publication or disclosure under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;
   * departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;
   * military insignia;
   * third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;
   * other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade marks, and design rights; and
   * identity documents such as the British Passport.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 2 Scene 1

Actus Secundus. Scena Prima.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 2 Scene 2

Scena Secunda.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 3 Scene 2

Scena Secunda.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 1 Scene 6

Scena Sexta.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 1 Scene 7

Scena Septima.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 3 Scene 3

Scena Tertia.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 3 Scene 1

Actus Tertius. Scena Prima.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 1 Scene 5

Scena Quinta.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 2 Scene 3

Scena Tertia.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedy of Macbeth/Act 2 Scene 4

Scena Quarta.
Layout 2
# States of Christian Life and Vocation, According to the Doctors and Theologians of the Church/Part 1/Section 1/Article 2

Suarez says: "It is clear that married persons are in the common condition of the Christian life. For, in reference to the spiritual life, marriage, of itself, adds nothing to the general state of the faithful ; and it calls for no further perfection than what is essential to charity, and what the profession of the Christian religion demands. Indeed, among married persons, there may be a high degree of holiness and good works ; yet their state does not make that high degree imperative, nor does it offer any special assistance for its attainment. It is, therefore, called an imperfect state ; not that it debars from perfection, but because, in itself, it does not impel to perfection." "If, in the Church of Christ, it receives from its character, as sacrament, a certain measure of perfection, all it gains from that dignity is greater stability and more abundant grace to surmount with generosity the difficulties and dangers that surround it." The learned theologian adds: "The faithful, not engaged in the married state, or who have entered no perfect state, are not to be shut out from the general state of the Christian life. Nor among them are to be ranked those who, in the world, live in celibacy, virginity, or widowhood." We shall consider, one after the other, these different conditions of Christian life.
* ↑ Suar v lib. i, c. ii, n. 13. f Ibid., n. 14.
* ↑ Ibid., n. 14.
# States of Christian Life and Vocation, According to the Doctors and Theologians of the Church/Part 1/Section 1/Article 2/Paragraph 2. Virginity
## Paragraph 2 . Virginity.

All that has been said on the possibility, the advantages, and the excellence of celibacy, is applicable to the state of virginity. We shall not here go over that ground again. However, we shall speak a little of virginity, so as not to appear to mention, only in a passing way, what is, according to St. Ambrose, a leading virtue.

## Footnotes

* ↑ St. Thorn., 2, 2, q. 152, a. 3; Ambr., De virginitate, lib. I, c. i.
# Snyder v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 216
Snyder v. United States
This is an information in several courts, under section 3372 of the Revised Statutes, for the forfeiture of the tobacco, machinery, tools, and materials in a tobacco manufactory, for violations of the internal revenue laws. The property was released upon the claimant's giving a bond to abide the final decree. The claimant demurred to the information, as not setting forth any facts warranting the seizure or forfeiture of the property. The demurrer was overruled, the claimant filed an answer, and, upon a trial, a verdict was returned in this form: 'We, the jury, find a verdict for the government, evaluating the goods and machinery seized at a sum of one thousand dollars.' The claimant moved, in arrest of judgment, that several of the counts were insufficient, and that the verdict was general upon all the counts, and was vague and uncertain, and not responsive to the issue. The motion was overruled, and judgment rendered for the United States, and the claimant sued out a writ of error.
Informations under the revenue laws for the forfeiture of goods, seeking no judgment of fine or imprisonment against any person, are not strictly criminal cases, in which the decisions of the circuit court are final, unless a division of opinion is certified; but they are civil actions, of which this court has jurisdiction in error, without regard to the sum or value in dispute. Rev. St. § 699; Pettigrew v. U.S. 97 U.S. 385. Yet, as has been expressly adjudged, they are so far in the nature of criminal proceedings as to come within the rule that a general verdict upon several counts, seeking in different forms one object, must be upheld if one count is good. Clifton v. U.S. 4 How. 242, 250. As one of the counts in this case is admitted to be good, it is unnecessary to consider the objections taken to the other counts.
The verdict, though expressed in bad English, clearly manifested the intention and finding of the jury upon the issue submitted to them, and the court rightly gave judgment upon it. Rev. St. § 954; Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 39, 46; Lincoln v. Iron Co. 103 U.S. 412.
Judgment 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
# Snyder v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 216
Snyder v. United States
J. D. Rouse and Wm. Grant, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for defendant in error.
GRAY, 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
# So Big

* related portals: Pulitzers, American literature.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
SO BIG
EDNA FERBER
SO BIG
SO BIG
BY
EDNA FERBER
AUTHOR OF
THE GIRLS, FANNY HERSELF,
ROAST BEEF MEDIUM, Etc.
NEW YORK
GROSSET & DUNLAP
PUBLISHERS
Made in the United States of America
COPYRIGHT, 1924, BY DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYRIGHT,
1923, 1924, BY THE CROWELL PUBLISHING COMPANY. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES AT
THE COUNTRY LIFE PRESS, GARDEN CITY, N. Y
SO BIG
* I
* II
* III
* IV
* V
* VI
* VII
* VIII
* IX
* X
* XI
* XII
* XIII
* XIV
* XV
* XVI
* XVII
* XVIII
* XIX
* XX
* XXI
* Edna Ferber
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 1968, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 55 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
# Spencer v. McDougal

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
159 U.S. 62
Spencer v. McDougal
Edwin H. Abbot, Louis D. Brandies, and W. F. Vilas, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. G. Greene, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Browne, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER 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
# Spencer v. Texas/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stewart
* Dissenting Opinion Brennan
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 554
Spencer v. Texas
Argued: Oct. 17 and 18, 1966. --- Decided: Jan 23, 1967
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.
I join the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE insofar as that opinion would reverse in Nos. 68 and 69. I would, however, also reverse in No. 70. It seems to me that the constitutional error here involved undermined 'the very integrity of the fact-finding process', Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 639, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1743, 14 L.Ed.2d 601, and I would therefore apply the rule retroactively. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811; Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891; Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908.

## 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
# Spencer v. Texas

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Stewart

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 554
Spencer v. Texas
Argued: Oct. 17 and 18, 1966. --- Decided: Jan 23, 1967
See 386 U.S. 369, 87 S.Ct. 1015, 1016.
No. 68: Michael D. Matheny, Tyler, Tex., for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, Austin, Tex., for appellee.
No. 69:
Tom R. Scott, Midland, Tex., for petitioner.
Hawthorne Phillips, Austin, Tex., for respondent.
No. 70:
Emmett Colvin, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.
Howard Fender, Austin, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Spencer v. Merchant

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 345
Spencer v. Merchant
[Statement of Case from pages 345-351 intentionally omitted]
Albert Day and Matthew Hale, for plaintiff in error.
Walter E. Ward, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, 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
# Stevenson v. Fain

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 165
Stevenson v. Fain
Argued: and submitted October 18, 19, 1904. --- Decided: November 7, 1904
Messrs.
This was a bill filed by Stevenson and others, citizens and residents of New York and Rhode Island, against Fain and others, citizens and residents of North Carolina and Georgia, in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Tennessee, to remove a cloud upon the title to a body of wild lands lying adjacent to the boundary between Tennessee and North Carolina.
Complainants claimed title under grants from the state of Tennessee, and alleged that the lands lay wholly in Monroe county, Tennessee. Defendants alleged that the lands lay wholly within the county of Cherokee, in the state of North Carolina, and that they were lawfully granted to their ancestor by that state.
The issue involved the true boundary line between North Carolina and Tennessee. The circuit court held that the lands lay in the state of North Carolina, and that the title was in defendants, and dismissed the bill.
Thereupon an appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit, and, on hearing, the decree of the circuit court was affirmed. 53 C. C. A. 467, 116 Fed. 147.
From the decree of the circuit court of appeals this appeal was prosecuted.
T. S. Webb, Hu. L. McClung, Charles Seymour, and L. M. G. Baker for appellants.
Messrs. John W. Green and Samuel G. Shields for appellees.
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
# Stevenson v. Texas Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 703
Stevenson v. Texas Railway Company
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William S. Herndon and Mr. Anthony Q. Keasbey for the appellant.
Mr. Walter D. Davidge and Mr. James Lowndes for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS 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
# Stevenson v. Barbour/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
140 U.S. 48
Stevenson v. Barbour
J. G. Carlisle, for plaintiff in error.
O. B. Hallam, for defendantin error.
FULLER, C. M.
No assignment of errors accompanies the transcript of record in this case, nor is there any specification of the errors relied on in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. Moreover, the record presents no question of law calling for the exercise of our right of review. Fishburn v. Railway Co., 137 U.S. 60, ante, 8; Express Co. v. Malin, 132 U.S. 531, 538, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166. 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
# Stevenson v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 313
Stevenson v. United States
Fred Beall, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
Mr. Justice PECKHAM 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
# Stevenson v. Barbour

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
140 U.S. 48
Stevenson v. Barbour

## 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
# Stevenson v. Pemberton

April Term, 1760.
William Allen, Chief Justice. :
| Lawrence Growden, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ Justices. |
| William Coleman, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ Justices. |
Stevenson versus Pemberton.
Scire facias against Defendant as Garnishee. The Case was; C. in the West-Indies was indebted to P. the Defendant, for Bills of Exchange drawn by C. in Favour of P. which were protested. P. by Letter solicits C. for Security. C. consigns a Quantity of Rum to P. and by Letter directs P. to sell the same for his (C’s) Account, and apply the Proceeds to the Payment of from protested Bills drawn by C. in favour of other People "first being satisfied that his (P’s) Bills were paid.—The Bills of Lading express this Rum to be shipt on the proper Account and Risque of C.—The Rum comes into P’s Hands, but before any Sale, the Plaintiff S. a Creditor of C. brought a foreign Attachment against C. and attached these Goods in the Hands of P.—The Question on the these Facts, as found by a special Verdict, was, Whether P. should retain the Goods for the Payment of his own Debt, or whether the Property remained in C. so as to be liable to the Attachments of S?
It was urged by the Council for the Plaintiff, that the Consignment of this Rum to P. on the Account of C. with Orders to sell the same on the Account of C. and then to apply the Proceeds according to his Directions, did not alter the Property, but left the same in C. till a Sale. And that P. was only to have a future Interest in the Money arising from the Sale of the Goods.—But the Plaintiff being as well a Creditor as the Defendant, and coming in under the Law of Attachments before a Sale and while the Property, by the very Terms of the Confsignment, remained in C. ought to be first paid his Debt. The counsel cited Bro. Property 2. 2 Mod. 242. 2 Chan. Cases. 7. 36. 1. Salk. 160. 12 Mod. 156.
For the Defendant: It was contended, that the Rum was a Security in the Hands of P. for the Payment of P’s Debt, and that P. was a Trustee for himself and the other Dutch Bill Creditors. And that such a special Property was vested in P. that C. himself could have no Remedy to get these Goods out of the Hands of P. till P’s Debt was satisfied; and that the Plaintiff could be in no better case than C. himself.—The Cases cited for the Defendants were 2 Very 428. 2 Thomas Jones 222. 2 Peere Williams 326. Bro. Act Case 113. 271. Finch 299. 236. 10 Mod. 432. Yelv. 164. 2 Lee 10 Mod. 144. 2 Co. 26. 1 Stra. 165.
​ By the Court. This Rum appears to have been sent to satisfy P’s Debt. If it had been Money, there could have been no doubt but the Defendant would have retained it. And the only difference is that a Commodity was sent which must be converted into Money, before the Sum to be paid to P, could be ascertained, but, as to P’s interest in it, the Case was the same. Therefore judgment, by the whole Court, was given for the Defendant.
Chew and Moland pro Quer.—Galloway and Dickenson pro Def.