OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Vail v. Arizona

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
207 U.S. 201
Vail v. Arizona
Argued: November 15, 1907. --- Decided: December 2, 1907
Messrs. Samuel L. Kingan and William Herring for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 202 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. William c. Prentiss, Horace F. Clark, and E. S.C.lark for appellee.
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
# Vai Tchodjouklareum

* related portals: Erotic poetry.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Attributed as a Kurdistani love poem, as published in the 1919 Coloured Stars
Ah! my children! do you know Djemileh,
The turquoise, the carnation, the most beautiful girl in Bagdad?
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! her face has aspects of the moon.
And in each of her eyes there is a sun.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! sometimes she leaves her vest unfastened,
Forgetting — who knows? — that it hides her breasts.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! she has round rosy paps
Standing straight out like peaches not yet ripe.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! look at the curve of her back;
She might crack nuts below her waist there.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! what shall be said of her thighs,
What so good to dream of as her thighs?
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! Djemileh has just passed
Appetising and gilt like a cake for Ramazan.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! she comes down from the mountains
With her arms full of flowers, those little flowers that never die.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! the wind makes cling to her skin
Her rose robe, and makes her look quite naked.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! Djemileh comes to us to sell
The little flowers that never die, plucked in the mountain.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! when she sells her flowers
The bright eyes of the lads bathe her and devour her.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! eyes that pass through her robe
And do not count the money she gives back.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! feeling hands that tickle her
And she laughs with all her teeth, pulling back her veil.
Ah! my children!
Ah! my children! Djemileh has sold the flowers from the mountain;
And added to her dowry for marrying the hill boy she loves.
Ah! my children!
# Vailima Letters

Letters to Sir Sidney Colvin

### Contents

* Chapter I: Nov. 2nd, 1890
* Chapter II: Nov. 25th, 1890
* Chapter III: Dec. 1890
* Chapter IV: Jan. 17th, 1891
* Chapter V: Feb. 1891
* Chapter VI: March 19th, 1891
* Chapter VII: April 18th, 1891
* Chapter VIII: April 29th, 1891
* Chapter IX: June 1891
* Chapter X: Sept. 5th(?), 1891
* Chapter XI: Sept. 28, 1891
* Chapter XII: Oct. 24th, 1891
* Chapter XIII: Nov. 25th, 1891
* Chapter XIV: Dec. 1891
* Chapter XV: Jan. 31st, 1892
* Chapter XVI: Feb. 1892
* Chapter XVII: March 9th, 1892
* Chapter XVIII: May 1st, 1892
* Chapter XIX: May 29th, 1892
* Chapter XX: July 2nd, 1892
* Chapter XXI: Aug. 1892
* Chapter XXII: Sept. 15th, 1892
* Chapter XXIII: Oct. 28th, 1892
* Chapter XXIV: Dec. 1st, 1892
* Chapter XXV: Jan. 1893
* Chapter XXVI: Feb. 19th, 1893
* Chapter XXVII
* Chapter XXVIII: April 1893
* Chapter XXIX: April 25th, 1893
* Chapter XXX: May 29th, 1893
* Chapter XXXI: June 24th(?), 1893
* Chapter XXXII: August 1893
* Chapter XXXIII: August 23rd, 1893
* Chapter XXXIV: Oct. 23rd, 1893
* Chapter XXXV
* Chapter XXXVI: Jan. 29th, 1894
* Chapter XXXVII: Feb. 1894
* Chapter XXXVIII: March 1894
* Chapter XXXIX: May 18th, 1894
* Chapter XL: June 18th, 1894
* Chapter XLI: July 1894
* Chapter XLII: Aug. 7th, 1894
* Chapter XLIII: Sept. 1894
* Chapter XLIV: Oct. 6th, 1894
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
# Who's Who in the Far East/BIRCH, James Kortright

Layout 2
​ BIRCH, James Kortright (PEXANG), Resident Councillor. Cadet, Straits Settlements Civil Service, 1872; passed final examination in Malay, Dec., 1873; Collector of Land Revenue, Penang and Province Wellesley, and Settlements Officer, Trans Krian, Sept., 1877; Collector of Land Revenue, Singapore, June, 1880; acting Police Magistrate and Commissioner of Court of Requests, Province Wellesley, May, 1882; Senior District Officer, Province Wellesley, 1888; first Magistrate and Commissioner, Court of Requests and Superintendent of Prisons, Penang, June, 1890; acting 'Treasurer, Straits Settlements, Feb., 1894; first Magistrate, Singapore, April, 1895, but continued to sict as Treasurer; Treasurer, April, 1897; acting Resident Councillor, Penang, May, 1897 to August, 1898; and from April, 1901; Resident Councillor, Malacca, 1898; was appointed acting Resident Councillor, Penang, Oct., 1903, and appointment was confirmed July, 1904. Address: Penang, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BISHOP, James E.

Layout 2
​ BISHOP, James E. (JELEBU), F.M.S. Civil Service; b. Dec. 18, 1875. Entered Service as cadet, Pahang, Oct., 1898; acting assistant District Officer, Pekan, Aug. 18, 1900; acting assistant District Officer, Lipis, Sept., 1901; assistant District Officer, Lipis, Mar., 1902; acting assistant District Officer, Raub, Jan., 1903; acting District Officer, Raub, June, 1904; acting District Officer, Jelebu, 1904. Address: Jelebu, Negri Sembilan, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BICKNE LL, William Alfred

Layout 2
​ BICKNELL, William Alfred (PENANG), Straits Settlements Civil Service; b. Aug. 29, 1859. Appointed Chief Clerk in Colonial Secretary's Office 1885; Auditor and Official Assignee, Penang, since 1888. A ddreas: Audit Office, Penang, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BIRCH, Ernest Woodford

Layout 2
​ BIRCH, Ernest Woodford (PERAK), C.M.G., 1900; British Resident; b. April 29, 1857, e. s. of J. W. W. Birch, Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements and British Resident of Perak, who was assassinated by the Malays in November,. 1875; in. 1882, Margaret, d. of Laurence Niveu. Educ.: Elstree-School; Harrow. Served in Colonial ​Office, 1876-78; cadet in the Service of the Straits Settlements, 1878; served in various capacities in Singapore and Malacca till 1892; has previously acted as British Resident of Perak and Selangor; British Resident of the Negri Sembilan, 1897-1900; employed on a special mission in H.M.S. "Espoir" to the Cocos, Keeling Islands, 1885; Governor and Commander-in-Chief, Labuan, B. North Borneo, 1900-4; present post, Feb. 10, 1904. Recreations: Most field sports. Clubs: Sports; Windham; M.C.C., London. Address: Taiping, Perak, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BILLINGS, George Michael

Layout 2
​ BILLINGS, George Michael (SHANGHAI), B.A.; Vice-Principal Shanghai Public School; b. Feb. 15, 1878; MI. July 5, 19C5, Nellie Rosa, d. of Capt. J. A. Scott, Nova Scotia. Educ.: Wyggeston and Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Leicester, 1886-96; Jesus College, Oxford. Entered Oxford University 1896 as Shute Science Scholar; in 1899 was awarded Principal's. Exhibition at Jesus College; 3rd class final honours, School of Natural Science (Chem. Phys.) 1900; assistant Master at Raffle's Institution, Singapore, 1901; Vice-Principal, Shanghai Public School,. 1903. Club: Shanghai. Address: Public School, Shanghai, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BIRBECK, R. J.

Layout 2
​ BIRBECK, R. J. (HONGKONG), B.A... Cantab; Master, Queen's College,. fc.il875. Arrived in Colony, Sept. 20r 1903. Club: Hongkong. Address.: Queen's College, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BERRINGTON, Arthur Tewdyr Davies

Layout 2
​ BERRINGTON, Arthur Tewdyr Davies (TAIPIXG), B.A.; Judicial Commissioner; b. Sept. 7, 1854, e. s. of Arthur Davies Berrington, J.P., D.L., of Panty-Goitre, Abergavenny; m. 1900, Beatrice, d. of Rev. J. Rathborne, Rector of West Tytherley, Hants. Educ: Clifton College and Christ Church, Oxford; B.A., 1878; called Inner Temple, 1879; Oxford Circuit; J.P. and D.L. ​for Monmouthshire; Private Secretary to Sir H. Bulwer, in Cyprus, Oct., 1888, and to Sir Frederick Dickson in the Straits Settlements, May, 1890; Chief Magistrate, Selangor, 1891; Senior Magistrate, Perak, July 1896; Commissioner for Lands and Mines, F.M.S.,1901; Legal Adviser, Federated Malay States, Nov., 1902; Senior Judicial Commissioner, F.M.S., 1905-6. Recreations: Golf, Shooting, Automobilism. Clubs: Union; Automobile, London. Address: Taiping, Perak, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BERTHEL, Carl

Layout 2
​ BERTHEL, Carl (SHANGHAI), Pharmacist; 6. Aug. 17, 1879. Educ.: Vienna. Since 1901 has been in business in Shanghai; established own business, 1903; on Nov. 12, 1905, witnessed riots in Vladivostock. Recreations: Swimming and Cycling (120 prize medals won on Continent). Clubs: Hon. member bicycle club Flotte Fahrer, Vienna; German Club Concordia, Shanghai. Address: 7, Houam Road, and 13A, Avenue Road, Shanghai, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BERRY, Prof. Arthur Daniel

Layout 2
​ BERRY, Prof. Arthur Daniel (TOKYO), A.B., B.D.; Missionary; b. Aug. 7, 1872, at Mexico, N.Y., U.S.A. Educ.: Syracuse University; Drew Theological Seminary. Pastor, Methodist Episcopalian Church, Maplewood, New Jersey, U.S.A., 1899-1902; arrived in Japan, 1902; was stationed at Fukuoka, 1902; Moji, 1903-5; Tokyo, 1905; Professor in Theological School, Aoyama Gakuin, 1906. Address: Tokyo, Japan.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BIRD, R. E. O.

Layout 2
​ BIRD, R. E. O. (HONGKONG), M.A., Oxon; Senior Assistant Master, Queen's College; b, 1869. Head Master, Armenian College, Calcutta; Assistant Master, King's College, Bangkok; arrived Hongkong, 1902, as assistant master; promoted April, 1906. Clubs: Hongkong; Oxford Union. Address: Queen's College, Hongkong.
# Wallace v. United States (389 U.S. 215)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 215
Wallace v. United States (389 U.S. 215)
BIBB COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
No. 671. Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1967.
October Term, 1967.
December 4, 1967
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen. of Alabama, and John C. Satterfield, for appellants Lurleen Burns Wallace, Governor of Alabama and others.
Reid B. Barnes, for appellants Bibb County Board of Education and others.
Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Doar, Louis F. Claiborne and David L. Norman, for the United States in No. 489.
Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Doar, for the United States in No. 671.
Fred D. Gray, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Charles H. Jones, Jr., Charles Stephen Ralston and Melvyn Zarr, for appellees Lee and others.
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
# Wallace v. United States (257 U.S. 541)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 541
Wallace v. United States (257 U.S. 541)
Argued: Jan. 27, 1922. --- Decided: Feb 27, 1922
Claiming to be a Colonel in the Quartermaster Corps of the United States Army, the appellant sued in the Court of Claims to recover $6,580.67 salary and commutation of quarters from February 13, 1918, until March 12, 1919. His petition was dismissed.
The President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of War, issued an order dismissing the appellant from the service by General Orders No. 17, of February 13, 1918, of which he was notified on the same day. The United States was then at war with Germany. On March 1, 1918, the President sent to the Senate the following nominations:
'I nominate the officers named for promotion in the Army of the United States:
'Quartermaster Corps
'To be Colonels
'Lieutenant Colonel Robert S. Smith, Quartermaster Corps, with rank from February 14th, 1918.
'Lieutenant Colonel Richmond McA. Scofield, Quartermaster Corps, with rank from February 23rd, 1918.
'To be Lieutenant Colonels
'Major Morton J. Henry, Quartermaster Corps, with rank from February 14th, 1918.
'Major William Elliott, Quartermaster Corps, with rank from February 23, 1918.'
These officers were confirmed March 8, 1918. This filled the complement of 21 officers allowed by law in the grade of Colonel in the Quartermaster Corps.
On July 16th appellant made a formal application in writing for trial by courtmartial, setting forth under oath that he had been wrongfully dismissed. On September 14, 1918, the trial was refused by the Secretary and no court-martial was convened.
Prior to June 24, 1918, plaintiff did not have knowledge of section 1230, Revised Statutes. He had been advised after his dismissal that he could seek relief through Congress.
Messrs. H. Stanley Hinrichs and Frank S. Bright, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Ottinger, for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT, after stating the case, 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
# Wallace v. United States (258 U.S. 296)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 296
Wallace v. United States (258 U.S. 296)
Argued: April 10, 1922. ---
Counsel for the appellant object to the presumption we indulge in our opinion in this case that the Senate must have known of the dismissal of Wallace when it confirmed the nomination of Lieutenant Colonel Robert Smith, whose appointment and confirmation filled the place considered vacant by Wallace's dismissal. They insist that the absence of knowledge by the Senate of Wallace's removal was conceded by the government in both the Court of Claims and here. What the government brief in this court said was that it did not appear that the Senate was advised. But appellant's counsel produce evidence from the record in the Court of Claims upon which they ask that the case be remanded to the Court of Claims to make a finding on this point. Let us concede for the sake of the argument, without deciding, that is properly a matter of evidence dehors the record, and of a finding thereon. The chief item of evidence on which the motion is based is a statement in the record below that--
'on or before February 21, 1918, it was the practice of the Adjutant General's office to nominate an officer vice the particular officer whose promotion or separation from the service caused the vacancy, and that, after February 21, 1918, the practice of indicating the specific vacancy was discontinued on the recommendation of the Executive Clerk of the Senate.'
The contention of the defendant on this showing is that the Senate adopted the practice of confirming appointments to vacancies made by the President without investigation into the cause of the vacancies because of the exigencies of war and the great number of appointments. We do not see that if such facts were found, it would alter our necessary conclusion. The Senate in confirming nominations is not exercising a judicial but an executive function. It does not have to give a hearing or make an investigation before lawful action, and if it chooses to accept the President's nomination as assurance that there is a vacancy to which the appointment proposed can be made, and acts on that assurance, the legal effect of the confirmation is not affected.
Petition for rehearing and the motion to remand are denied.

## 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
# Wallace v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wallace 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.
* Wallace v. United States (133 U.S. 180)
* Wallace v. United States (162 U.S. 466)
* Wallace v. United States (257 U.S. 541)
* Wallace v. United States (258 U.S. 296)
* Wallace v. United States (389 U.S. 215)
See also United States v. Wallace.
# Wallace v. United States (258 U.S. 296)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 296
Wallace v. United States (258 U.S. 296)
Argued: April 10, 1922. ---
Messrs. H. Stanley Hinrichs and Frank S. Bright, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Ottinger, for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# Wallace v. United States (133 U.S. 180)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
133 U.S. 180
Wallace v. United States
Geo. A. King, for appellant.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Cotton, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# Williams v. Georgia

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Clark
    Minton
United States Supreme Court
349 U.S. 375
Williams v. Georgia
Argued: April 18, 1955. --- Decided: June 6, 1955
Mr. Carter Hall, for petitioner.
Mr. Eugene Gressman, Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae, in support of petitioner by invitation of the Court.
Messrs. E. Freeman Leverett, Robert H. Hall, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
WILLIAMS verʃus GEHEOGAN.
M
On the firʃt point, it was stated that Williams was not in America at the time when the debt was contracted, for which this action was brought ; but that he came hither merely to collect the debts of a houfe, in which he had formerly been a partner ; that, therefore, he could not claim the benefit of the act, which, it was urged, extended only to foreigners, who came to this country in the way of trade, who refided here while their merchandize was fold, and who were not punctually paid at the expiration of the credit which they gave. 3 St. Laws. 31. Lewis v. Turner in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia, was cited. The Plaintiff in that cafe was a refident of New-York, and came to Philadelphia merely to fue, and recover from the Defendant : The Court determined that he was not entitled to a Special Court ; and SHIPPEN, Preʃident, faid, that a citizen of the United States was not a foreigner in Pennʃylvania .
On the ʃecond point, it was obferved, that the Defendant being fued as fuper-cargo, it would be incumbent on him to ftate all the accounts of the veffel in queftion ; that he was at this time in Charleʃton, South-Carolina, having in his poffeffion all the documents and vouchers neceffary to his defence; that he had always expreffed a determination to attend the trial of the caufe, and that his abfence ​
could not be long protracted, as the ſpecial bail had ſent a bail piece and power of attorney to take the Defendant, and ſurrender him in this Court.
Coulthurſt, for the Plaintiff, laid, that the debt was contracted in Philadelphia, and was there due and payable from the Defendant to the Plaintiff ; that Williams came hither to pay the debts of the company, as well as to collect their credits ; that he was a foreigner, in the ſtrongeſt meaning of the word, and, conſequently, could not be affected by the caſe of Lewis v Turner, which was decided on the ground of the party's being a citizen.
With reſpect to the accounts, he endeavoured to ſhew, from the cauſe of action, that they could not be material to the defence on this occaſion; and contended, that the Defendant's abſence was no reaſon to defeat the Plaintiff's claim to the benefit of the act.
M’KEAN, Chief Juſtice.–The act ſeems to be intended for the benefit of every man, whether an inhabitant, or a foreigner, who is about to leave the State; and the Plaintiff is clearly within the deſcription of perſons entitled to a Special Court. But, we think, for the ſecond reaſon which has been urged by the Defendant's counſel, that it would be doing manifeſt injuſtice to hurry the trial on at this time: Therefore,
By the Court: Let the rule be diſcharged.
# Williams v. Florida/Concurrence Burger

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Burger
* Dissenting Opinions Black Marshall
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
399 U.S. 78
Williams v. Florida
Argued: March 4, 1970. --- Decided: June 22, 1970
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, concurring.
I join fully in Mr. Justice WHITE's opinion for the Court. I see an added benefit to the notice-of-alibi rule in that it will serve important functions by way of disposing of cases without trial in appropriate circumstances-a matter of considerable importance when courts, prosecution offices, and legal aid and defender agencies are vastly overworked. The prosecutor upon receiving notice will, of course, investigate prospective alibi witnesses. If he finds them reliable and unimpeachable he will doubtless re-examine his entire case and this process would very likely lead to dismissal of the charges. In turn he might be obliged to determine why false charges were instituted and where the breakdown occurred in the examination of evidence that led to a charge.
On the other hand, inquiry into a claimed alibi defense may reveal it to be contrived and fabricated and the witnesses accordingly subject to impeachment or other attack. In this situation defense counsel would be obliged to re-examine his case and, if he found his client has proposed the use of false testimony, either seek to withdraw from the case or try to persuade his client to enter a plea of guilty, possibly by plea discussions which could lead to disposition on a lesser charge.
In either case the ends of justice will have been served and the processes ecpedited. These are the likely consequences of an enlarged and truly reciprocal pretrial disclosure of evidence and the move away from the 'sporting contest' idea of criminal justice.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

## 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