OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Mossel/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 65
United States v. Mossel
Argued: April 10, 1923. ---
Under stipulation of counsel, filed in the clerk's office, the above cases are submitted on the record as printed in United States v. Harry W. Luskey (No. 371) 262 U.S. 62, 43 Sup. Ct. 493, 67 L. Ed. --, just decided, 'it being agreed by counsel that they shall be controlled by the decision in that case.'
Therefore, upon its authority, the judgments in these cases are
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
# United States v. Mullan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 186
United States v. Mullan
Atty. Gen. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, and F. P. Dewees, for appellant.
John Paul Jones and Robt. B. Lines, 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
# United States v. Mowry

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 564
United States v. Mowry
Mr. Justice NELSON 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
# United States v. Mowry/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 564
United States v. Mowry
This is an appeal from the court of claims.
The petition of Mowry sets forth that railroad cars were needed on the Pacific Railroad, in Missouri, for the transportation of men and supplies in the military department of the west, then in command of Gen. Fremont; and that on the 22d September, 1861, he made a contract with Chief Quartermaster McKinstry, at the head of that department under Gen. Fremont, to construct 50 box cars and 50 platform cars, the former for $825 each, and for the latter $700 each. These cars were afterwards constructed, approved, and taken into the service of the government.
The payment of the price on this contract was, among many others within that military district, suspended, upon allegations of fraud and irregularities committed therein, and a board of commissioners appointed to investigate them and report to the secretary of war. The petitioner presented his claim before this board charging the contract price, amounting to $76,250. This board, after investigation, allowed to the petitioner $58,750, and gave him a voucher for that amount, the payment of which was accepted by him from the government, as provi ed for by an act of congress. The court of claims allowed the balance of the contract price,-$17,250.
The case falls within the decision of this court just rendered in the case of U.S. v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is concluded by the finding of the board and acceptance of payment.
The decree must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree dismissing the petition.
The Attorney General, Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickey, and E. P. Norton, for the United States.
R. M. Corwine, J. M. Carlisle, and J. D. McPherson, for appellee.

## 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
# United States v. Mueller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
113 U.S. 153
United States v. Mueller
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for United States.
Enoch Tolten, for Mueller.
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
# Washington Railway Electric Company v. Scala

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 630
Washington Railway Electric Company v. Scala
Argued: May 8, 1917. --- Decided: June 11, 1917
[Syllabus from page 630 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John S. Barbour for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of council from pages 630-634 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Daniel W. O'Donoghue and Arthur A. Alexander for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 634-636 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Clarke 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
# Washington Post Company v. Chaloner

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
250 U.S. 290
Washington Post Company v. Chaloner
Argued: April 22 and 23, 1919. --- Decided: June 2, 1919
Messrs. Wilton J. Lambert, Joseph W. Bailey, and Rudolph H. Yeatman, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Messrs. E. F. Colladay, of Washington, D. C., and Sidney J. Dudley, of Hampton, Va., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Washington Railroad v. Bradleys

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
77 U.S. 299
Washington Railroad v. Bradleys
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in a case of a bill by the Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown Railroad Company, against the City of Washington, and J. H. and A. T. Bradley and others, amended by the addition of new defendants; and of a petition 'by way of cross-bill,' made by one of the respondents in the case, referring to the case by title, and stating that 'the facts fully appear in the case,' praying the reverse of what the complainant had prayed, but not making anybody defendant, nor praying process, and under which no process was obtained; the decree appealed from having been a decree in accordance with the prayer of this 'cross-bill.' The particulars of the case, which was argued here by Messrs. Bartley, Bradley, and Davidge, for the appellants; and by Messrs. Brent, Crittenden, and Durant, contra, are perhaps sufficiently indicated by
Mr. Justice SWAYNE, who thus gave them 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
# Washington Securities Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 76
Washington Securities Company v. United States
Argued: May 7 and 8, 1914. --- Decided: May 25, 1914
Messrs. H. R. Clise, Charles Kennedy Poe, and Charles Poe for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel for appellee.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Brennan

## Dissenting Opinion

    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 116
United States v. Ewell
Argued: Nov. 18, 1965. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1966
[Syllabus from pages 116-117 intentionally omitted]
Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
David B. Lockton, Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee, Clarence Ewell.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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
# United States v. Evans (333 U.S. 483)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 483
United States v. Evans (333 U.S. 483)
Argued: Feb. 3, 1948. --- Decided: March 15, 1948
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.
Mr. David Reich, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. David Ginsburg, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE 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
# United States v. Evans (213 U.S. 297)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
213 U.S. 297
United States v. Evans (213 U.S. 297)
Argued: December 18, 1908. --- Decided: April 19, 1909
Solicitor General Hoyt for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 297-298 intentionally omitted]
No appearance for respondents.
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
# United States v. Ewell/Concurrence Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Brennan
* Dissenting Opinion Fortas
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 116
United States v. Ewell
Argued: Nov. 18, 1965. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1966
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, concurring in the result.
I am unable to join the Court's opinion, because it could be read as implying approval of a course of government conduct that I find most oppressive. Appellees were indicted initially under only one of the three statutes which this Court held in Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405, over my dissent, might constitutionally be applied to a single narcotics sale. Their successful attacks upon their sentences brought on these new indictments for all three statutory offenses. I can think of no plausible reasons for this tactic except to increase the pressure on appellees to plead guilty by raising the threat of cumulative sentences, or to punish them for asserting their rights to challenge their original sentences. The Government offered to abandon this tactic and limit prosecution to 26 U.S.C. § 4704 (1964 ed.) only on rehearing, after the prosecution seemed imperiled.
Government tactics of this kind raise very serious questions for me. Cf. Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199; Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 196-201, 79 S.Ct. 666, 671-674, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (separate opinion); Van Alstyne, In Gideon's Wake: Harsher Penalties and the 'Successful' Criminal Appellant, 74 Yale L.J. 606 (1965). But I agree with the Court that because the prosecution is now limited to § 4704, appellees have suffered no prejudice. I would not, however, as the Court seems to do, imply approval of the tactics the Government employed. Indeed, the Government informed us after argument that this problem is involved in another case, pending below, where an accused initially indicted for only one offense has been reindicted for three. It does not appear that the Government has limited the prosecution in that case to § 4704.
Mr. Justice FORTAS, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.

## 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
# United States v. Evans (195 U.S. 361)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 361
United States v. Evans
Argued: October 31 and November 1, 1904. --- Decided: November 28, 1904
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 361-363 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Benjamin Carter and R. H. Clarke for appellee.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Wang Ch'i-ch'ang

Mr. C. Z. Waung
王啓常字段啓常
(Wang Ch'i-ch'ang)
Mr. C. Z. Waung was born at Ningpo, Chekiang, in 1888. He was educated at St. John's University, Shanghai (1900-1907). He left China for Great Britain in October 1997 and entered the University of London in March 1908. He studied economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science and received the degree of Bachelor of Science (Economics) from the University of London at the end of 1911 with honors. After his graduation, he returned to China in February 1912, and joined the Ministry of Finance of the Provisional government of the Republic of China at Nanking. After the unification of the North and the South, he went to Peking and continued to serve at the Ministry of Finance. When the Bureau of Auditing of Finance was formed in the summer of 1912, he was appointed an assistant auditor. After the abolition of the bureau, he was appointed senior clerk of the Ministry of Finance. In the winter of 1913, he was delegated by the Ministry to be a member of the Financial Com​mission of the Cabinet. In the summer of 1915, he was appointed by the Ministry as a member of the Taxation Reform Commission. From 1913 to 1919, he was also connected with the Peking Government University as professor of economic history. When the Bureau of Currency Reform was formed at the end of 1917, he was transferred to that bureau. In November 1919, he was appointed by the Bureau of Currency Reform to proceed to Europe to investigate the currency condition in Europa and America since the Great War. At the sime time he was appointed by the Chinese Associated Trading Company to act as its representative in Europe. The trading company is the first Chinese importing and exporting firm carrying on direct trade with Europe and America. After he had finished his mission in Europe, he returned to Peking in November 1923 and again joined the Ministry of Finance. In the summer of 1921, he organized, with a number of his friends, the Chinese Women's Commercial and Savings Bank in Peking. At the first general meeting of the shareholders, in September 1921, he was elected the general manager. This is the first bank in China which has a staff of women officers, and the organizers expect to open up a new sphere of activity for educated Chinese women. Socially, Mr. Waung has been for a long time an active member of the Anglo-Chinese Society at Peking. From 1913 to 1919, he served as the treasurer of this society. He is also an active member of the Peking Y. M. C. A., and for several years he has served on a committee of its educational department.
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Tu Tso-hsuan

Mr. Tu Cho-hstan
杜竹宣
(Tu Tso-hsuan)
Mr. Tu Cho-hsuan was born at En Hsien, Shantung province in 1883. He is a Catholic. He attended the North China Christian Union College at Pei Tungchow for eight years. After graduation he was on the faculty for three years (between 1905 and 1907) at the same college, teaching history and mathematics. In 1908 he joined the Reform Society, organized by Mr. Thwing, and remained with it for four years. The work for the Reform Society prepared him to be a journalist. The society carried on an anti-opium, and anti-liquor campaign under the able direction of Mr. Thwing, and Mr. Tu was entrusted with the task of preparing propaganda articles for the press. Mr. Thwing and Mr. Tu went to Kwangtung, Kwangsi, Fukien, Yunnan and Kweichow to investigate the poppy conditions, and many pamphlets were published by them jointly. In 1912 he ​joined the Ta Kung Pao of Tientsin was editor. During his connection, that paper was most prosperous commercially. Realizing that he could not advocate his policy in a paper owned by others, he started the (Social Welfare) Yi Shih Pao in 1916 with the cooperation of a few friends whose ideas on politics and other public affairs were similar to his. Four months later he established the Peking Yi Shih Pao. Today the Tientsin Yi Shih Pao has a daily circulation of 15,000 and the Peking Yi Shih Pao prints 14,000 copies. They are the largest papers in the two cities and wield considerable influence locally. Acting manager of the Peking Yi Shih Pao, Mr. Tu also retains a control over the Tientsin paper. During the Anfu time, his paper at Peking was closed by the authorities, and he had to flee to the Legation Quarters for safety where he stayed for more than two months. During the fight for supremacy between Chihli and Anfu forces in the summer of 1920, he was being closely watched by the Anfu detectives and his life was in constant danger.
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Tung K'ang

Mr. Tung K'ang
董康字綬金
Mr. Tung Kang was born at Wu-chin Hsien, Kiangsu province, in 1869. He was brought up in a well known literary family of southern China. He became a Metropolitan Graduate in 1889 when he was barely twenty years of age. He began his official career as Junior Secretary of the Board of Punishment. The other positions he held under the Ching Regime were judge of the criminal department of the Supreme Court and general secretary to the Law Codification Bureau. He distinguished himself in judicial administration. He directed the drafting of the criminal law, civil law, commercial law, civil procedure, criminal procedure, etc. which were provisional and effective for the time being. In the first year of the Republic, Minister Tung traveiled extensively in Japan. He returned to China in the winter of 1913. In February 1914 he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which position he held until July 1918 when he was appointed president of the Law Codification Bureau. He was Chief Justice of the Prize Court from 1917 till the time when he resigned from ​the Supreme Court. In November 1918 he was awarded the First Class Wenfu. In July 1920 Mr. Tung was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the second time. But a month later he was appointed Acting Minister of Justice. From May to December, 1921, he was Minister of Justic. In December 1921 he returned to the Supreme Court again holding concurrently the post of President of the High Judicial Service Punishment Commission. In February 1922 he received another post as President of the Commission for the Consolidation of Domestic and Foreign Debts. In May 1922 he was appointed Acting Minister of Finance, holding concurrently the post of Director General of the Salt Administration, of the Currency Bureau and of the Wine and Tobacco Administration. In August 1922 Mr. Tung was relieved from all the financial posts. Shortly afterwards he left China on a touring trip to America and Europe to investigate commercial and industrial conditions therein. During his absence, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in September 1922, with Yu Chi-chang to act for him; President of the High Judicial Service Court, in October 1922 with Hu l-Ku to act for him. In February 1923 he was officially relieved of these two appointment and was at the same time the Vice-President of the Commission for the Discussion of Jurisprudence. In October 1923 he was given the Second Order of Merit. In 1924 he returned to China.
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Tu Ch'un

Mr. Tu Ch'un
社 純字子遠
Mr. Tu Ch'un was born at Pan-yu Hsien, Kuangtung province, in 1886. Shortly after leaving school, Mr. Tu was called to official life and under the Manchu regime, received his first important appointment as Special Commissioner for the preparation and arrangement of the Nanyang Industrial Exposition. Following the establishment of the Republic in 1911 Mr. Tu became chief secretary in the yamen of the Commissioner of Defense for Shanghai and Sungkiang, a post which was later changed to that of Military Governor of Shanghai and Sungkiang. He served in this ​post under three governors. In August 1919 he was awarded the Second Class Chiaho. In June 1920 the Peking government appointed Mr. Tu to the post of Customs Superintendent of Hangchow. In December 1920 he received the Third Class Paokuang Chiaho. While in Chekiang he was for some time Commissioner of Finance concurrently. In March 1922 he was appointed Salt Transportation Commissioner of Chekiang. In September 1922 he was awarded the Second Class Tashou Chiaho. He is chairman of the Chekiang Flood Relief Commission and is Director of the Hangchow branch of the Chinese-Foreign Famine Relief Committee. His activities are devoted not only to Hangchow and the province of Chekiang, but Shanghai, Peking and Canton organizations also have his assistance. He holds many other decorations, including a special medal of merit for benevolence from the Peking government and the highest medal of honor from the Red Cross Society of China.
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Tu Hsi-kuei

Admiral Tu Hsi-kuei
杜錫字慎
Admiral Tu Hsi-kuei was born at Foochow, Fukien province, in 1875. He was graduated from the Naval College, Nanking with the highest honors in 1902. Subsequently he was given the rank of sub-lieutenant on board the cruiser Hai Chi. Sixteen months later he was promoted to the rank of junior lieutenant. After holding the ranks of navigating lieutenant and gunnery lieutenant for a short time he was appointed commander of the torpedo boat Chien Tze, and five months later acted as commander of the cruiser Kien An. In this capacity he directed the survey of the Port of Lungkou. He was appointed to the rank of full commander and was posted at Chefoo in charge of the marine corps, later being posted to the Kiang Ting, and Hai Yung respectively. Upon the establishment of the Republic, Admiral Tu was still in charge of the Haitung, China's largest cruiser. He was ordered to act concurrently as director of defences in Fukien. In 1915 the Chinese government appointed him commander of the training ​cruiser Chao Ho. From there he was transferred to the Hai Yung. In 1917 he was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Second Squardron. In January 1920 he was awarded the Second Class. Tashou Chiaho. In August 1921 he received the Fourth Order of Merit. In October 1921 he was made a Rear-Admiral. In January 1922 he was awarded the First Class Wenfu. In June 1922 he became Commander-in-chief of the Chinese Navy. During the Chihli-Fengtien War in 1922 he played an important part which was partly responsible for the Chihli Party. In October 1922 he was awarded the First Class Tashou Chiaho. In the spring of 1923 the Shanghai Section of the Chinese Navy declared independence of the Peking government. As a result of it Admiral Tu tendered his resignation. In October 1923 he was made a Chiangchun with "Ying-Wei” as special title. In November 1923 he was again appointed Commander-in-Chief of Chinese Navy. In March 1924 he was made an Admiral. In September 1924 he was appointed to command the fleet to participate in the Punitive Expedition waged by the Peking government against Marshal Chang Tso-lin.