OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hebrew Melodies (Byron, 1815)

HEBREW MELODIES.
T. DAVISON, Lombard-street, Whitefriars, London.
HEBREW MELODIES.
BY LORD BYRON.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE-STREET.
1815.
​The subsequent poems were written at the request of the author's friend, the Hon. D. Kinnaird, for a Selection of Hebrew Melodies, and have been published, with the music, arranged, by Mr. Braham and Mr. Nathan.
CONTENTS.
Page
HEBREW MELODIES.
Layout 2
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
# Hebert v. Louisiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 312
Hebert v. Louisiana
Argued: Oct. 13, 1926. --- Decided: Nov 1, 1926
Mr. A. R. Mitchell, of Lake Charles, La., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Percy Saint and E. R. Schowalter, both of New Orleans, La., and John J. Robira, of Lake Charles, La., for the State of Louisiana.
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
# Henry VI Part 2 (1923) Yale/Appendix D

Layout 2
APPENDIX D
The Text of the Present Edition
The text of the present volume is, by permission of the Oxford University Press, that of the Oxford Shakespeare, edited by the late W. J. Craig. Craig's text has been carefully collated with the Shakespeare Folio of 1628, and the following deviations have been introduced:
1. The stage directions of the Folio have been restored. Necessary words and directions, omitted by the Folio, are added within square brackets.
2. Punctuation and spelling have been normalized to accord with modern English practice; e.g., yclad, warlike, housekeeping, Saint Albans, villainies (instead of y-clad, war-like, house-keeping, Saint Alban's, villanies). The words murder, murther, murderer, murtherer, burden, burthen, etc., have not been normalized, ​the actual form employed by the Folio being in each case retained.
3. The following changes of text have been introduced, usually in accordance with Folio authority. The readings of the present edition precede the colon, while Craig's readings follow it.
I. i. 137 ye F: you
193 Hath F: Have
iii. 46 fashion in (Fashions in F): fashion of
54 a-tilt F: a tilt
153 needs F: can need
188 an F: a
iv. 9 of an F: of
35 fates await F: fate awaits
51 threatest where's F: threat'st where is
77 goes F: go
II. i. 15 he would F: he'd
42 and if F: an if
47 ye F: you
91 Simon (Symon F); Simpcox
107 Saint Albans (Saint Albones F): Saint Alban
172 under ground F: under-ground
iii. 30 realm F: helm
iv. 88 Trowest F: Trow'st
89 enjoys F: enjoy
III. i. 10 And F: An
98 Suffolk F: Suffolk's duke
117 dis-pursed F: disbursed
328 Bristow F: Bristol
342 an host F: a host
ii. 147 earthy F: earthly
286 far-unworthy F: far unworthy
318 Mine hair be fix'd an end F: My hair be fix'd on end
327 consort F: concert
392 cradle-babe F: cradle babe
408 corrosive F: corsive
IV. 1. 22 Be F: Cannot be
48 sometime: sometimes
77 shalt: shall F
117 Pene (Pine F) gelidus . . . it is F: Gelidus . . . 'tis
ii. 115 a honest F: an honest
​179 an eunuch F: a eunuch
vi. 11 ye F: you
vii. 52 in F: on
viii. 60 an hundred F: a hundred
x. 1 ambitions F: ambition
56 for words F: for more words
66 I'ld (I'de F): I'll
V. i. 21 Should F: Shouldst
118 of F: for
149, 210 bearard (Berard, Bearard F): bear-ward
ii. 3 alarum F: alarm
# Henry VI Part 2 (1923) Yale

* related portals: The Yale Shakespeare.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, Wikidata item.
Part of The Yale Shakespeare series.
Layout 2
∵ The Yale Shakespeare ∵
THE SECOND PART OF KING HENRY THE SIXTH
EDITED BY TUCKER BROOKE
NEW HAVEN · YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON · HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS · MCMXXIV
Copyright, 1923 By Yale University Press
TABLE OF CONTENTS :
| | PAGE |
| The Text | 1 |
| Act I | 1 |
| Act II | 26 |
| Act III | 45 |
| Act IV | 75 |
| Act V | 105 |
| Notes | 119 |
| Appendix A. Sources of the Play | 142 |
| Appendix B. The History of the Play | 147 |
| Appendix C. Authorship | 152 |
| Appendix D. The Text of the Present Edition | 156 |
| Appendix E. Suggestions for Collateral Reading | 158 |
| Index of Words Glossed | 160 |
The facsimile opposite reproduces the title-page of the earliest version of the play later known as 'The Second Part of King Henry VI.' It is a good example of the descriptive title-page designed for advertising purposes. Only two or three copies are known, of which the one reproduced is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
THE YALE SHAKESPEARE
Edited by
Wilbur L. CrossTucker Brooke
Published under the Direction
of the
Department of English, Yale University,
on the Fund
Given to the Yale University Press in 1917
by the Members of the
Kingsley Trust Association
To Commemorate the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary
of the Founding of the Society
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 1946, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 77 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
# Honolulu Oil Corporation v. Halliburton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 550
Honolulu Oil Corporation v. Halliburton
Argued: March 3-6, 1939. --- Decided: April 17, 1939
Messrs. A. W. Boyken, of San Francisco, Cal., and A. J. Hill, of Los Angeles, Cal., for Honolulu Oil Corporation.
Messrs. Leonard S. Lyon and William H. Davis, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for Erle P. Halliburton et al.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Hong Kong Report for the Year 1968

Hong Kong Report for the Year 1968
(Published by the Hong Kong Government in February 1969. Copyright has expired since 2020.)

## Table of Contents

* Chapter 1: Review
* Chapter 2: Employment
* Chapter 3: Financial Structure
* Chapter 4: Industry and Trade
* Chapter 5: Primary Production
* Chapter 6: Education
* Chapter 7: Health
* Chapter 8: Land and Housing
* Chapter 9: Social Welfare
* Chapter 10: Public Order
* Chapter 11: Immigration and Tourism
* Chapter 12: Public Works and Utilities
* Chapter 13: Communications
* Chapter 14: Press, Broadcasting and Cinema
* Chapter 15: The Armed Services and Auxiliary Services
* Chapter 16: Religion and Custom
* Chapter 17: Recreation
* Chapter 18: Geography and Climate
* Chapter 19: Population
* Chapter 20: Natural History
* Chapter 21: History
* Chapter 22: Constitution and Administration
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it was created by a public body of the United Kingdom with Crown Status and commercially published before 1974.
See Crown copyright artistic works, Crown copyright non-artistic works and List of Public Bodies with Crown Status.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is created by an officer of the Hong Kong Government, and is in the public domain in Hong Kong, because:
* It was created before 1899; or
* It was first published commercially within 75 years from the end of its creation year, and 50 years have passed since the end of the calendar year of its first commercial publication. In other words, it was created after 1898, and published before 1974.
See Section 182 of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) of the Laws of Hong Kong.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Hong Kong Royal Instructions

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hong Kong Royal Instructions."
* 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.
* Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1843
* Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917
# Gotthilf v. Sills

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
375 U.S. 79
Gotthilf v. Sills
Argued: Oct. 24, 1963. --- Decided: Nov 18, 1963
O. John Rogge, New York City, for petitioner.
Theodore Charnas, New York City, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 393
Goto v. Lane
Argued: Feb. 28 and 29, 1924. --- Decided: June 2, 1924
Mr. Thomas W. Gregory, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 394-397 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Frederick Milverton, of Washington, D. C., 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
# Holley v. Lawrence

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 518
Holley v. Lawrence
On Jurisdictional Statement Under Rule 12, Dec. 24, 1942.
Decided Jan. 18, 1943.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1943.
See 318 U.S. 578, 63 S.Ct. 531, 87 L.Ed. --.
Mr. Benjamin E. Pierce, of Augusta, Ga., for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
45 U.S. 645
Holliday v. Batson
Mr. Barton having filed and read in open court a certificate in writing, in the following words and figures, to wit:--
'Clerk's Office, Circuit Court, United States, 5th Circuit, and Eastern District of Louisiana.
'ROBERT HOLLIDAY ET AL. v. JOSEPH N. BATSON ET AL.
'In the above-entitled cause, I certify that a final judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court of the United States for the 9th (now 5th) Circuit and Eastern District of Louisiana, on the twentieth day of January, eighteen hundred and forty-one, and that a writ of error was taken by the defendants, returnable to the January term, 1842, of the Supreme Court of the United States.
'Witness my hand, and the seal of said court, at New Orleans, this 4th February, 1845.
[SEAL.] DUNCAN N. HENNEN, Clerk.'
and moved the court to docket and dismiss the said writ of error, under the forty-third rule of court. It is thereupon now here considered and ordered by the court, that the said motion be, and the same is, hereby overruled, the titling of the case in the said certificate being too vague and uncertain.
Per Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.

## 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
# Hollender v. Magone

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 586
Hollender v. Magone
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:
The facts in this case are these: On October 19, 1886, the plaintiffs imported and entered at New York 226 casks, aggregating 2,861 gallons, of beer, on which the defendant, as collector of the port, exacted duty at 20 cents a gallon. This was paid by the plaintiffs under protest, they insisting that the beer had become sour and worthless on the voyage of importation. They applied, on October 26th, for a rebate on account and to the extent of this damage, under Rev. St. § 2927, which is as follows:
'Sec. 2927. In respect to articles that have been damaged during the voyage, whether subject to a duty ad valorem, or chargeable with a specific duty, either by number, weight, or measure, the appraisers shall ascertain and certify to what rate or percentage the merchandise is damaged; and the rate of percentage of damage, so ascertained and certified, shall be deducted from the original amount, subject to a duty ad valorem, or from the actual or original number, weight, or measure, on which specific duties would have been computed.'
But this application was refused on the ground that such an allowance was prohibited by a proviso in Schedule H, act of March 3, 1883, (22 Stat. 505,) which says: 'There shall be no allowance for breakage, leakage, or damage on wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits.' Thereafter this suit was brought, and on the trial thereof the court instructed the jury to find for the defendant. 38 Fed. Rep. 912. Judgment having been entered on such verdict, plaintiffs sued out a writ of error from this court.
E. B. Smith, for plaintiffs in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 587-588 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Holley v. Lawrence/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 518
Holley v. Lawrence
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Court has examined all the federal questions raised by appellant. In so far as the appeal challenges the validity of Georgia Code § 38-1604, which makes incompetent the testimony of a wife at the trial of her husband, the judgment of the court below rests upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it, namely that the failure to tender such testimony at the trial barred any later claim of the alleged constitutional right. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mims, 242 U.S. 532, 535, 37 S.Ct. 188, 189, 61 L.Ed. 476. The Court finds that no other federal question presented by the appeal warrants review by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
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
# Hollander v. Fechheimer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 326
Hollander v. Fechheimer
This was a bill in equity, filed by the firm of Fechheimer, Goodkind & Co., against Justus Hollander, a judgment debtor, Samuel Bieber, his assignee, and a number of preferred creditors under such assignment, alleging that the assignment was fraudulent and void, and praying that Hollander might be required to disclose the amount of his indebtedness to each of his preperred creditors; the amount of goods purchased by him immediately prior to his failure, and the names of the persons from whom purchased; the amount of his indebtedness to each of his creditors before making such purchases; the amount and character of goods he had in stock prior to his last purchases, and sundry other particulars; the amount of property turned over to Bieber under the assignment,-and also praying for the appointment of a receiver, the setting aside of the assignment, the payment of the plaintiffs' claim, and an injunction against the defendant Bieber from further proceeding under the assignment.
The bill set forth, as the basis of plaintiffs' right to sue, an indebtedness in the sum of $1,000, by judgment recovered in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, upon which execution had been issued and returned nulla bona, a note for $1,000, and goods purchased to the amount of $1,846.50.
Demurrers were filed to this bill by Bieber and certain of the preferred creditors, which were sustained, and the bill dismissed. Upon appeal to the general term, the decree of the special term dismissing the bill was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. Answers were subsequently filed by the several defendants, and testimony taken; and upon a hearing upon pleadings and proofs the bill was again dismissed, and an appeal taken to the general term, which again reversed the decree of the special term, declared the assignment to be fraudulent and void, and decreed that the complainants recover from the defendant Bieber the amount of their judgment, set out in the bill of complaint, together with their costs, to be taxed by the clerk, and that the case be remanded to the special term for further proceedings. From this decree defendants appealed to this court.
Leon Tobriner, for appellants.
James Francis Smith and Henry E. Davis, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Hollingshead v. Wainwright

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 31
Hollingshead v. Wainwright
Cleveland Hollingshead, pro se.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. of Florida and James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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
# Hollingshead v. Wainwright/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 31
Hollingshead v. Wainwright
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811.
Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART are of the opinion that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be 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
# Holliday v. Batson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
45 U.S. 645
Holliday v. Batson
The above motion was made and overruled at the preceding term. At the present term, a certificate was filed, with a proper titling, and, on motion of Mr. Eustis, the case was docketed and 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
# Helvering v. Credit Alliance Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 107
Helvering v. Credit Alliance Corporation
Argued: April 7, 1942. --- Decided: April 27, 1942
Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Newell W. Ellison, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# Helvering v. Enright's Estate

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 636
HELVERING, Com'r of Internal Revenue, v. ENRIGHT'S ESTATE et al.
Argued: March 4, 1941. --- Decided: March 31, 1941
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Gordon Tweedy, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. James D. Carpenter, Jr., of Jersey City, N.J., for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Helvering v. Davis

United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 672
HELVERING, Com'r of Internal Revenue, et al. v. DAVIS.
Argued: May 5, 1937. --- Decided: May 24, 1937
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 620-624 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Edward F. McClennen and Jacob J. Kaplan, both of Boston, Mass., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 625-633 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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
# Helvering v. Elbe Oil Land Development Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 372
Helvering v. Elbe Oil Land Development Company
Argued: Feb. 10, 1938. --- Decided: March 7, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. George T. Altman, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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
# Helvering v. Eubank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 122
Helvering v. Eubank
Argued: Oct. 25, 1940. --- Decided: Nov 25, 1940
See 312 U.S. 713, 61 S.Ct. 609, 85 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Harry J. Rudick, of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 122-124 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice STONE 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