OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Krishnakanta's Will (Chatterjee, Roy)/Part 1/Chapter 22

CHAPTER XXII.
THE rumour was afloat that Gobindalal had given seven thousand rupees' worth of ornaments to Rohini. This had reached her ears, and she wondered who had spread this falsehood. Could it be Bhramar? She at once jumped to the conclusion it was she. Who but this ​foolish girl would ever care to circulate this nonsense? Surely it was she who did it to be revenged on her by branding her with infamy. She remembered to have heard that she had called her a thief. She said she would never forgive her, but wear it in her heart till she had humbled her pride.
The reader by now knows Rohini well enough to feel that she is up to anything. She went and borrowed from a neighbour a silk cloth wrought with beautiful designs in gold and silver, and a suit of gilt ornaments. With the cloth and the ornaments made up into a bundle she left and bent her steps in the direction of Krishnakanta's house. It was near dark, and she entered the house by the back-door. She then went and stepped quietly into Gobindalal's room where Bhramar was alone and weeping. Seeing Rohini she recoiled just as she would have recoiled at the sight of a serpent in her way. "You thieving, wicked, dangerous woman, what do you want here in my room?" she cried. "Have you come into this house again to steal?"
Rohini cursed her in her mind. Aloud she said, and with a coolness which was extremely provoking, "No, not to steal. I don't need to steal now. I must confess that your husband is very kind to me. He has given me this valuable cloth, and these ornaments here whose worth is about three thousand rupees. The rumour that he has given me some seven thousand rupees' worth of ornaments is false."
"Get out of my room, you serpent. How dare you add insult to injury?" exclaimed Bhramar.
Rohini, without paying any heed to her words, hastened to put before her the ornaments after undoing the bundle.
This was so aggravating and insulting to her that she struck them with her foot in great indignation, and scattered them about on the floor. "Out, you shameless impudent woman, pack out this instant," she cried.
Rohini very quickly picked up the ornaments, put them together and withdrew without uttering another word.
# Krishnakanta's Will (Chatterjee, Roy)/Part 1/Chapter 29

CHAPTER XXIX.
"What have I done that you want to leave me?" This question Bhramar never put to Gobindalal, but after the scene described in the preceding pages this was upon her mind night and day. Gobindalal too asked himself what her fault was. Bhramar was surely in the wrong, he thought, for she ought to have considered before she wrote such a sharp letter to him. We will, however, give the debate that he had with his conscience.
Gobindalal. Her fault is she was jealous. And isn't it quite as bad as anything?
Conscience. Hadn't she a good reason to be jealous? You cannot deny your illicit connection with Rohini.
G. When she first had her suspicions I was quite innocent.
C. Yes; but in your mind you knew you were guilty. And since by your conduct you gave your wife reason to be jealous as much before as after committing yourself to evil, could she have been anything but jealous?
G. But it seems to me that had she not been jealous I should never have gone wrong. Do we not sometimes drive an honest man to go astray by giving him a bad name?
C. The fault then, in your opinion, lies not at the door of him who goes to the bad, but him who gives him a bad name. Nice argument this!
G. Nice or not nice, I am sure she ought never to have gone to her father's since she was told that I was coming home and was on the way. Besides I think she could never have found it in her heart to write such a stinging letter to me if she had had the least regard for my feelings.
C. If she knew that she had had good grounds for her suspicion she was perfectly justified in acting as she had done. Can a wife see her husband go wrong and not resent it?
G. But she knew nothing for certain; and she acted on a mere rumour, which she should not have done. She ought to have asked me.
C. And did you care to ask her?
G. I did not.
C. Then how could you hold her wrong for never telling her suspicions to you? But that's not it. I will tell you what it really is.
G. And that is?
C. It is just this. You took a fancy to Rohini, and so you wished in your mind to get her. But why did Krishnakanta give your share of the property to your wife? Because, besides feeling sure she would soon want to make it over to you, he hoped that such a step might open your eyes to your folly and win you back from the path you are treading.
G. She does want to make it over to me, but I will not accept it, not I.
C. Why? The property is yours. It was acquired by your late father, and you are his heir.
G. But since my uncle, on his death-bed, had bestowed it upon her, it is no longer mine.
C. Your uncle had no right to bestow it upon your wife. He knew that very well; but he did so, thinking it might disenchant you, as I have said, and make you turn from the path you are pursuing.
G. But I will not stoop to accept a gift from my wife. I had much rather starve than do so.
C. In other words you would sooner give up your wife and give up your property than lose Rohini. Well, then go your way. If you are resolved upon your ruin no one can help it.
# Krishnakanta's Will (Chatterjee, Roy)/Part 1/Chapter 23

CHAPTER XXIII.
Bhramar could get no sleep at all, and she passed a very anxious and restless night. Before morning dawned she engaged herself in writing a letter to her husband. When she was married she was an unfledged and unlettered girl of eight. Her husband taught her how to read and write; but she was never an apt pupil, and consequently she had not been able to make any very great progress. However, she could read and write tolerably well. This day as she wrote she blotted and blundered much, for she felt very uneasy in her mind.
Her letter we give below in a readable form.
"That day when you returned from the garden after eleven o'clock at night, I inquired what made you stay away till so late as that. You refused to tell me. When I insisted on knowing you said you would tell me, but not until a couple of years had passed. But I have got your secret. I wish I had never known it. Rohini called yesterday to show me the cloth and the ornaments you have given her. Such a wicked impudent woman she is. She did it to hurt and insult me, I know. But I bore with her and let her go unharmed.
"What will you say now? I had unbounded faith in you, you know I had. My heart is broken. I wish we should not meet when you come. Would you kindly drop a line to say when you are going to come home? I request this favour because I want to go to my father's house before your return home. I shall know how to get your uncle to consent to my going."
In due course Gobindalal received his wife's letter. When he had read it, he was as much pained as surprised. It was like a bolt from the blue. The language in which it was couched made him for a moment doubt that it was written by his wife. But there could be no question about it, for he well knew her hand.
By the same post there had come a few more letters which be afterwards opened and read one after the other. Among these was one from Brahmananda, who wrote as follows:—
My Dear Sir,
I am obliged to communicate with you on a very painful subject. A rumour is afloat (though I do not believe one word of it) that you are in a criminal intrigue with my niece, Rohini, and that you have given seven thousand rupees' worth of ornaments to her. This is scandalous, and injurious to us. But who do you think ​the inventor of it is? Would yon believe me? They name your wife. I was astonished to hear it, for I never dreamed of any harm from your quarter. I am a poor man and have ever lived under the protection of your uncle. I communicate my grievance to you, and I earnestly hope that you will do justice in the matter.
Yours sincerely Brahmananda Ghose.
Gobindalal was amazed. Bhramar had fabricated this? Was it possible? The more he pondered over it the more perplexed he was. At length he decided that he must at once start for home. So he told his naib, and, through him, his tenantry that he was going home the next day, the pretext put forward being that the climate of the place did not agree with his health. Accordingly a boat was got ready, and on the following day Gobindalal started homeward with his attendants.
# Krishnakanta's Will (Chatterjee, Roy)/Part 1/Chapter 24

CHAPTER XXIV.
Why had she, thought Bhramar, let her husband go? If he had stayed at home the mystery of this disgraceful rumour would have been easily solved and she would have been spared the cruel anxiety she was labouring under. She was in a passion with her husband, for the proofs she had of his illicit love for Rohini seemed to speak very strongly against him. This troubled her very much making her miserable and taking the sweetness out of her daily bread.
On the very day that Gobindalal left to return home the naib sent by post an intimation of his departure to Krishnakanta. The letter reached him four or five days before Gobindalal arrived. When Bhramar heard that her husband was coming home, she wrote a letter to her mother, which she secretly sent by a woman of a low caste, for her native village was only a few miles off from Haridragram. She pretended she was in the worst of health, and asked her mother to send for her immediately on receipt of her letter. She warned her at the same time that in the letter they would write they were to make no mention of the state of her health.
When her mother received her letter, she naturally became very anxious. Had it been any other person he might have suspected that there was something wrong. But the mother easily swallowed what her daughter wrote. She wept and showed the letter to her husband, who at her instance sent a palanquin and bearers the next day with a letter in which he made a pretext of his wife's illness to request Krishnakanta to send their daughter to their house for a few days.
Krishnakanta was in a fix. It did not seem to him right to allow his daughter-in-law to go to her father's house, since Gobindalal was coming home and would arrive shortly. Nevertheless he ought not, he thought, to refuse to let her go, considering that her mother was ill and wished to see her. He reflected for a while and decided that she might go only for four days.
On his return home Gobindalal heard that his wife had gone to her father's, but that a palanquin and bearers should be sent that day to bring her. He was greatly annoyed. Did she not know him better than to believe a flying rumour and conclude that he was in the guilt? If she did not care to have the slightest regard for his feelings why should he have any for hers? She was certainly going to extremes. She would be sorry for it one day! He expressly told his mother not to bring her; and Krishnakanta said nothing, but allowed his nephew to have his own will.
# Leggett v. Allen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 741
Leggett v. Allen
A. J. Falls, for motion.
Thorndike Saunders, in opposition.
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
# Leggett v. Allen/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 741
Leggett v. Allen
This motion is granted on the authority of Wiswall v. Campbell, 93 U.S. 347, in which it was decided that this court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the circuit court, rendered in a proceeding upon an appeal from an order of the district court rejecting the claim of a supposed creditor against the estate of the bankrupt, and for the reason that a proceeding to prove a debt is part of the suit in bankruptcy, and not an independent suit at law or in equity. Such being the nature of the proceeding, it is a matter of no consequence whether the appeal from the district court to the circuit court was taken by the creditor or the assignee, for it has always been held that this court has no control over judgments or orders made by the circuit courts in mere bankruptcy proceedings. It is unnecessary to repeat here what was said in Wiswall v. Campbell. This case and that are in all material respects alike. Dismissed.

## 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
# Legion of Merit - G. T. Coker

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
WASHINGTON D. C. 20350
The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the LEGION OF MERIT to
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER GEORGE T. COKER
UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE
for service as set forth in the following
    CITATION:
    For exceptional meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam from August 1966 to March 1973. Under the most adverse of conditions, he resisted all attempts by the North Vietnamese to use him in causes detrimental to the United States, never wavering in his devotion and loyalty to the United States. In an outstanding and tireless fashion, he served as Chaplain wherein he provided spiritual guidance, instilled constructive rehabilitative thinking and conducted religious services for the benefit of the other prisoners during their long internment. Despite the lack of material aids, he devoted long hours toward improving their morale and well-being. His extraordinary skill, resourcefulness, and dedication to duty throughout this lengthy confinement reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Naval Service and the United States Armed Forces.
The Combat Distinguishing Device is authorized.
* For the President, Secretary of the Navy
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
# Leggett v. Avery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 256
Leggett v. Avery
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. M. D. Leggett for the appellants.
Mr. John E. Hatch, contra.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# Leggett v. Standard Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 287
Leggett v. Standard Oil Company
Edmund Wetmore, for appellant.
Chas. C. Beaman and Jos. H. Choate, for appellee.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# Legion of Merit - J. E. Ray

CITATION TO ACCOMPANY THE AWARD OF
THE LEGION OF MERIT TO CAPTAIN JAMES E. RAY
FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1966 TO MAY 1969
This officer distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services to the United States as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam during the above period. His ceaseless efforts, by a continuous showing of resistance to an enemy who ignored all international agreements on treatment of prisoners of war, in the extremely adverse conditions of the communist prisons of North Vietnam, demonstrated his professional competence, unwavering devotion, and loyalty to his country. Despite the harsh treatment through his long years of incarceration, this individual continued to perform his duties in a clearly exceptional manner which reflected great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force.
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
# Kail v. Wetmore Same

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 451
Kail v. Wetmore Same
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On motion of Mr. Goudy, opposed by Mr. Peck, to dismiss the writ.
Mr. Justice NELSON stated the facts and 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
# Lampton v. Bonin/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 663
Lampton v. Bonin
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the judgment of the United States District Court is vacated. The case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACK dissent for the reasons set forth in Mr. Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 430, 90 S.Ct. 1227, 35 L.Ed.2d 465.

## 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
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Appendix/Introduction

Appendix: Introduction.
APPENDIX.
LANCASHIRE WITCHES TRACT.
APPENDIX.
THE LANCASHIRE WITCHES.
INTRODUCTION.
From internal evidence, it maybe inferred that the author of the following rare tract probably lived in the early days of James I.; for although the Pendle Forest Witches form the burden of the story, they are nowhere alluded to as having suffered capital punishment at Lancaster, which many of them did in 1612. Another batch very narrowly escaped the same fate in 1633.—See Whitaker's Whalley; Potts's Discoverie, by Crossley; or Croston's Samlesbury Hall.
# Lanasa Fruit Steamship Importing Company v. Universal Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 556
Lanasa Fruit Steamship Importing Company v. Universal Insurance Company
Argued: Dec. 10, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 10, 1938
Messrs. George Forbes and Henry L. Wortche, both of Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.
Messrs. D. Roger Englar, of New York City, and Frank B. Ober, of Baltimore, Md., for respondent.
Mr. Chief 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
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c.

LANCASHIRE LEGENDS,
Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c.
WITH AN APPENDIX
CONTAINING
A RARE TRACT ON THE LANCASHIRE WITCHES,
&c. &c.
BY
JOHN HARLAND, F.S.A.
AND
T. T. WILKINSON, F.R.A.S. &c.
LONDON:
GEORGE ROUTLEDGE AND SONS.
MANCHESTER: L. C. GENT.
1873.
PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY EDINBURGH AND LONDON
To
THE PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL OF THE CHETHAM SOCIETY;
of which body The Late John Harland, f.s.a. was so useful and worthy a Member,
This Volume is Dedicated
by the Surviving Editor
T. T. WILKINSON.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PART I.
LEGENDS AND TRADITIONS.
PART II.
PAGEANTS, MASKINGS, AND MUMMINGS.
PART III.
SPORTS AND GAMES.
PART IV.
PUNISHMENTS—LEGAL AND POPULAR.
PART V.
POPULAR RHYMES, PROVERBS, SIMILES, &c.
PART VI.
MISCELLANEOUS SUPERSTITIONS & OBSERVANCES.
APPENDIX.
# Lancashire

Smart composed this musical arrangement for Reginald Heber's hymn "From Greenland's Icy Mountains" in 1835 for the use of a festival celebrating the 300th anniversary of the English Reformation. It was originally printed on leaflets, and was first published in 1867 in Smart's Psalms and Hymns for Divine Worship.
* "Lancashire" in The Army and Navy Hymnal, used with the hymn "The Day of Resurrection"
* "Lancashire" in The Army and Navy Hymnal, used with the hymn "Lead on, O King Eternal"
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
# Lectures on Modern History/Prefatory note

PREFATORY NOTE
The Lectures on Modern History were delivered by Lord Acton in his ordinary course as Professor in the academical years 1899-1900 and 1900-01. The Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History, here reprinted, was delivered on June 11, 1895. The document printed in Appendix I. is of great interest, as exhibiting the ideals of Lord Acton as a student and the aims of the undertaking which he planned and still bears his name.
It is hoped shortly to issue in another volume the Lectures on the French Revolution, and thus to complete the record of his work as Professor. The Introductory Essay deals exclusively with his Cambridge work. A more general account of his career will precede the volumes of essays and reviews. The editors wish to thank Professor Henry Jackson for his kind advice with regard to the Introduction.
The second impression differs from the first in that a few small errors in the text have been corrected. The editors desire to state that the Lectures are printed from the manuscript exactly in the form in which they were delivered.
J. N. F. R. V. L.
# Laus Deo!

* “Laus Deo!” in The Riverside song book (1893)
* “Laus Deo!” in The Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier (1895)
# Lavender's Blue

"Lavender's Blue" (also called "Lavender Blue") is an English folk song and nursery rhyme from the 17th century. Its Roud Folk Song Index number is 3483.
* "Diddle, Diddle" (17th century), broadside. This is the oldest known version of this song.
* "Lavender's Blue" in The Baby's Opera (1900)
# Lavender v. Kurn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645 (1946) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a negligent wrongful death case against a railroad employer. The Missouri Supreme Court ordered a directed verdict in favor of the employer, claiming lack of evidence of negligence. The Supreme Court overruled the State Supreme Court's ruling. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 645
Lavender v. Kurn
Argued: March 6, 7, 1946. --- Decided: March 25, 1946
Mr.N. Murry Edwards, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. William R. Gentry, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent Illinois Cent. R. Co.
Mr. Cornelius H. Skinker, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents J. M. Kurn and others, trustees, of St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., debtor.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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
# Lavengro

Lavengro: The Scholar, the Gypsy, the Priest (1851) is a work by George Borrow, falling somewhere between the genres of memoir and novel, which has long been considered a classic of 19th-century English literature. According to the author lav-engro is a Romany word meaning "word master" Warning: template has been deprecated.
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