OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon LXXXVIII

Canon LXXXVIII.
No one may drive any beast into a church except perchance a traveller, urged thereto by the greatest necessity, in default of a shed or resting-place, may have turned aside into said church. For unless the beast had been taken inside, it would have perished, and he, by the loss of his beast of burden, and thus without means of continuing his journey, would be in peril of death. And we are taught that the Sabbath was made for man:  wherefore also the safety and comfort of man are by all means to be placed first. But should anyone be detected without any necessity such as we have just mentioned, leading his beast into a church, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, and if a layman let him be cut off.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LXXXVIII.
Cattle shall not be led into the holy halls, unless the greatest necessity compels it.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon V

Canon V.
Let none of those who are on the priestly list possess any woman or maid servant, beyond those who are enumerated in the canon as being persons free from suspicion, preserving himself hereby from being implicated in any blame. But if anyone transgresses our decree let him be deposed. And let eunuchs also observe the same rule, that by foresight they may be free of censure. But those who transgress, let them be deposed, if indeed they are clerics; but if laymen let them be excommunicated.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon V.
A priest, even if a eunuch, shall not have in his house a maid or other woman except those on whom no suspicion can light.
See Canon III., of First Ecumenical Council at Nice. This canon adds Eunuchs.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon LXXXIII

Canon LXXXIII.
No one may give the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead; for it is written “Take and eat.” But the bodies of the dead can neither “take” nor “eat.”
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LXXXIII.
The Sacraments must not be given to a dead body.
This is canon iv. of the Council of Hippo, in the year 393. (Vide Hefele, Vol. II., p. 397.) The earlier canon includes baptism also, in its prohibition. This is canons xviii. and xx. of the African code, according to the Greek numbering.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon LXXXV

Canon LXXXV.
We have received from the Scriptures that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. Therefore we decree that slaves who are manumitted by their masters in the presence of three witnesses shall enjoy that honour; for they being present at the time will add strength and stability to the liberty given, and they will bring it to pass that faith will be kept in those things which they now witness were done in their presence.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LXXXV.
A slave manumitted by his master before two witnesses shall be free.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon LXXXVI

Canon LXXXVI.
Those who to the destruction of their own souls procure and bring up harlots, if they be clerics, they are to be [cut off and] deposed, if laymen to be cut off.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LXXXVI.
Whoever gathers together harlots to the ruin of souls, shall be cut off.
The brackets enclose the reading of Hervetus. But Zonaras had this same text, and therefore it may be safely followed instead of that of Balsamon, as edited by Beveridge.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon LXXXVII

Canon LXXXVII.
She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: “If a woman has become another man’s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled;” and again, “He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious.” If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be “weepers” for a year, “hearers” for two years, “prostrators” for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation [if with tears they do penance].
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LXXXVII.
She who goes from her husband to another man is an adulteress. And he who from his wife goes to another woman is an adulterer according to the word of the Lord.
Compare with this canon lviij. of St. Basil.
The words in brackets are found in Beveridge, but were lacking in Hervetus’s text.
Johnson.
Here discipline is relaxed; formerly an adulteress did fifteen years’ penance. See Can. Bas., 58. No wonder if in 200 years’ time from St. Basil, the severity of discipline was abated.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon VI

Canon VI.
Since it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
If any ordained person contracts matrimony, let him be deposed. If he wishes to be married he should become so before his ordination.
Aristenus points out how this canon annuls the tenth canon of Ancyra, which allows a deacon and even a presbyter to marry after ordination and continue in his ministry, provided at the time of his ordination he had in the presence of witnesses declared his inability to remain chaste or his desire to marry. This present canon follows the XXVIth of the Apostolic canons.
The last clause of this canon, limited in its application to subdeacons, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXXII., c. vi.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon LXXXIV

Canon LXXXIV.
Following the canonical laws of the Fathers, we decree concerning infants, as often as they are found without trusty witnesses who say that they are undoubtedly baptized; and as often as they are themselves unable on account of their age to answer satisfactorily in respect to the initiatory mystery given to them; that they ought without any offence to be baptized, lest such a doubt might deprive them of the sanctification of such a purification.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LXXXIV.
Whoever do not know nor can prove by documents that they have been baptized, let them be christened.
This is canon VII., of the Sixth Council of Carthage, (Vide Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 424); and Canon lxxv., of the African code (to which Balsam on attributes this canon), by the Greek numbering, (lxxii. by the Latin).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon LXXXIX

Canon LXXXIX.
The faithful spending the days of the Salutatory Passion in fasting, praying and compunction of heart, ought to fast until the midnight of the Great Sabbath: since the divine Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, have shewn us how late at night it was [that the resurrection took place], the one by using the words ὀΨὲ σαββάτων, and the other by the words ὄρθρου βαθέος.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LXXXIX.
On the Great Sabbath the fast must be continued until midnight.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon VII

Canon VII.
Since we have learned that in some churches deacons hold ecclesiastical offices, and that hereby some of them with arrogancy and license sit daringly before the presbyters: we have determined that a deacon, even if in an office of dignity, that is to say, in whatever ecclesiastical office he may be, is not to have his seat before a presbyter, except he is acting as representative of his own patriarch or metropolitan in another city under another superior, for then he shall be honoured as filling his place. But if anyone, possessed with a tyrannical audacity, shall have dared to do such a thing, let him be ejected from his peculiar rank and be last of all of the order in whose list he is in his own church; our Lord admonishing us that we are not to delight in taking the chief seats, according to the doctrine which is found in the holy Evangelist Luke, as put forth by our Lord and God himself. For to those who were called he taught this parable: “When ye are bidden by anyone to a marriage sit not down in the highest room lest a more honourable man than thou shall have been bidden by him; and he who bade thee and him come and say to thee: Give this man place, and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who bade thee cometh he may say to thee, Friend go up higher: then thou shalt have worship in the presence of them that sit with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” But the same thing also shall be observed in the remaining sacred orders; seeing that we know that spiritual things are to be preferred to worldly dignity.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VII.
A deacon in the execution of his office, if he shall have occasion to sit in the presence of presbyters, shall take the lowest place unless he be the representative of the Patriarch or bishop.
Balsamon, Zonaras, and following them Van Espen point out that this canon is a relaxation of the XVIII. Canon of Nice which punishes presumptuous deacons not only with loss of rank in their grade, but also with expulsion from their ministry.
Van Espen well remarks that the Fathers of this synod had in mind not only the preservation of the distinction between deacons and presbyters, but also between those in ecclesiastical orders and those enjoying secular dignities with regard to ecclesiastical matters, but who were not to gain there from ecclesiastical precedence. This is what is meant by the last clause of the canon.
Beveridge gives a list of these quasi ecclesiastical dignitaries as follows: Magnus Œconomus, Magno Sacello Præpositus, Magnus Vasorum Custos, Chartophylax, Parvo Sacello Præpositus, Primus Defensor.
# Nicholson

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Nicholson."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, taxonomy, 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.
* Nicholson, Brinsley
* Nicholson, Charles
* Nicholson, Francis (1660-1728)
* Nicholson, Francis (1650-1731)
* Nicholson, Francis (1753-1844)
    & Nicholson, Alfred (1788-1833)
    & Nicholson, George (1787-1878)
* Nicholson, George (1760-1825)
* Nicholson, George (1795?-1839?)
* Nicholson, Isaac
* Nicholson, John (d.1538)
* Nicholson, John (1730-1796)
    & Nicholson, John (1781-1822)
* Nicholson, John (1790-1843)
* Nicholson, John (1821-1857)
* Nicholson, Joshua
* Nicholson, Lothian
* Nicholson, Margaret
* Nicholson, Peter
    & Nicholson, Michael Angelo
* Nicholson, Renton
* Nicholson, Richard
* Nicholson, Samuel
* Nicholson, Thomas Joseph
* Nicholson, William (1591-1672)
* Nicholson, William (1753-1815)
* Nicholson, William (1781-1844)
* Nicholson, William (1782?-1849)
    & Nicholson, John (1777-1866).
* Nicholson, William (1816-1865)
* Nicholson, William Adams
# Nickerson v. Nickerson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 668
Nickerson v. Nickerson
J. J. Johnson and W. W. Wilshire, for appellant.
Enoch Totten, H. W. Garnett, and Conway Robinson, Jr., for appellees.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, 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
# Nicht Nought Nothing

* "Nicht Nought Nothing" in Lang, A. (ed.) Custom and Myth “A Far-Travelled Tale”
* "Nicht Nought Nothing” in “English and Scotch Fairy Tales” Collected by Andrew Lang. Folk-Lore, Volume 1, No. 3 (September 1890)
# Nickel v. Cole

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 222
Nickel v. Cole
Argued: March 24, 1921. --- Decided: April 25, 1921
Messrs. Edward F. Treadwell, of San Francisco, Cal., and Azro E. Cheney, of Reno, Nev., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Leonard B. Fowler, of Carson City, Nev., for defendants in error.
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
# Nicholson v. Boles

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
375 U.S. 25
Nicholson v. Boles
Warren V. Nicholson, pro se.
C. Donald Robertson, Atty. Gen. of West Virginia, and George H. Mitchell and J. Patrick Bower, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
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
# Nicholson v. Boles/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
375 U.S. 25
Nicholson v. Boles
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. In light of the confession of error by the Attorney General and upon an examination of the record, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for further consideration.
Mr. Justice STEWART is of the opinion 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
# North Carolina. A Call to Arms!!!

North Carolina.
A Call to Arms!!!
Ye sons of Carolina! awake from your dreaming! The minions of Lincoln upon us are streaming! Oh! wait not for argument, call, or persuasion, To meet at the onset this treach’rous invasion!
Oh! think of the maidens, the wives, and the mothers, Fly ye to the rescue, sons, husbands and brothers, And sink in oblivion all party and section, Your hearthstones are looking to you for protection!
“Her name stands the foremost in Liberty’s story,” Oh! tarnish not now her fame and her glory! Your fathers to save her their swords bravely yielded, And she never yet has to tyranny yielded.
The babe in its sweetness—the child in its beauty, Unconsciously urge you to action and duty! By all that is sacred, by all to you tender, Your country adjures, arise and defend her!
“The Star Spangled Banner,” dishonored is streaming O’er bands of fanatics; their swords are now gleaming; They thirst for the life-blood of those you most cherish; With brave hearts and true, then, arouse! or they perish!
Round the flag of the South, oh! in thousands now rally, For the hour’s departed when freeman may dally; Your all is at stake, then go forth, and God speed you! And onward to glory and victory lead you!
Thompson & Co., Printers, Raleigh, 1861.
This work was published before January 1, 1929 and is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or less since publication.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# North Carolina Company v. Story

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 288
North Carolina Company v. Story
Argued: April 14, 1925. --- Decided: May 25, 1925
Mr. S. R. Prince, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Chapin Brown, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
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
# North Carolina Company v. Lee/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 16
North Carolina Company v. Lee
Argued: Oct. 6, 1922. --- Decided: Oct 16, 1922
The Southern Railway includes a line in North Carolina which is held under a 99-year lease. On that line an employee was killed in March, 1919-apparently while engaged in intrastate commerce. His administratrix brought, in a court of the state, this action for damages, alleging that the line was then being operated by the Southern as lessee, and that the lessee's negligence in operation caused the injury. Only the lessor, the North Carolina Railroad Company, was made defendant. Its liability was asserted under a local rule by which a railroad corporation is liable for injuries resulting from a lessee's negligence in operation. Logan v. Railroad, 116 N. C. 940, 21 S. E. 959. The defendant set up the fact that, at the time of the accident, the Southern System was being operated solely by the Director General of Railroads under the Federal Control Act, March 21, 1918, c. 25, 40 Stat. 451. (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 3115 3/4 a-3115 3/4 p). On that ground it requested a ruling that the plaintiff could not recover. This request was refused; and the court instructed the jury that, if the government was operating the railroad, it was doing so in the capacity of a lessee and that the defendant 'would still be responsible for the acts and conduct of the government at the time it was operating' the same. The verdict was for the plaintiff; and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina without opinion. This court granted a writ of certiorari, 255 U.S. 567, 41 Sup. Ct. 447, 65 L. Ed. 790. Thereafter, the liability of carriers during federal control was considered in Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554, 41 Sup. Ct. 593, 65 L. Ed. 1087.
The government operated this railroad not as lessee but under a right in the nature of eminent domain. It operated through the Director General, not through the Southern Company as agent. The Ault Case holds that the Director General alone was made subject, by section 10 of the Federal Control Act to the 'liabilities as common carriers, whether arising under state or federal laws or at common law.' To permit an action for injuries suffered during federal control to be brought either against the Southern Company as lessee, or against the North Carolina Company as lessor, would be inconsistent with the provisions of that act. This is now recognized by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Lane v. Southern R. Co., 182 N. C. 774, 109 S. E. 87; Barbee v. North Carolina R. Co., 182 N. C. 775, 109 S. E. 87.
Reversed.

## 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
# North Carolina Company v. Lee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 16
North Carolina Company v. Lee
Argued: Oct. 6, 1922. --- Decided: Oct 16, 1922
Mr. S. R. Prince, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. R. C. Strudwick, of Greensboro, N. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/The Council of Sardica/Canons/Of the Latin, after XX

[After Canon XX.]
Canon XII. (Of the Latin Texts.)
Bishop Hosius said: But some discretion is here requisite, brethren dearly beloved, in case some should come to those cities which are on the highway still ignorant of what has been decreed in the council. The bishop of such a city ought therefore to admonish him [a bishop so arriving], and instruct him to send his deacon from that place. Upon this admonition he must, however, himself return to his diocese.
Notes.
Van Espen.
This proposition of Hosius in the Roman Codex is joined as an appendix to the preceding canon. The Greeks omit it altogether, very likely either because it seemed to be a proposition of Hosius’s rather than a synodal canon, for no adoption by the synod is recorded: or else because, even if it were a decree, it was only of temporary character, that is to say, until the canons had been sufficiently promulgated, and therefore some on the ground of ignorance might be exempt from the threatened penalties.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/Title Page

The Canons of the Synods of Sardica, Carthage, Constantinople, and Carthage
Under St. Cyprian,
Which Canons Were Received by the Council in Trullo and Ratified by II. Nice.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/The Council of Sardica/Canons/Of the Latin, after XIV

[After Canon XIV.]
Canon XVIII. (Of the Latin.)
Bishop Januarius said: Let your holiness also decree this, that no bishop be allowed to try to gain for himself a minister in the church of a bishop of another city and ordain him to one of his own parishes.
All said: Such is our pleasure, inasmuch as discord is apt to spring from contentions in this matter, and therefore the sentence of us all forbids anyone to presume to do
Note.
Van Espen.
It is manifest that these two canons [xviii. of the Latin and xv. of the Greek], contain the resolution of the same case, and therefore it is that the Greeks keep only the former which contains the decree of the synod, made on Hosius’s motion, the suggestion having been made by Januarius the bishop: which suggestion makes the first of these canons. [I.e. Latin canon xviij.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 3/The Council of Sardica/Note on the Text of the Canons

Note on the Text of the Canons.
The Canons of Sardica have come down to us both in Greek and Latin, and some writers such as Richer (Histoire Conc. Générale, Tom. i., p. 98), have been of opinion that the Latin text alone was the original, while others, such as Walch (Gesch. der Kirchenvers., p. 179), have arrived at a directly opposite conclusion. Now, however, chiefly owing to the investigations of the Ballerini and of Spittler, the unanimous opinion of scholars—so says Hefele—is that the canons were originally drawn up in both languages, intended as they were for both Latins and Greeks. I may perhaps remind the reader that in many Western collections of canons the canons of Sardica immediately follow those of Nice without any break, or note that they were not enacted at that council. It will also be well to bear in mind that they were received by the Greeks as of Ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo, and as such are contained in the body of the Greek Canon Law.
I have provided the reader with a very accurate translation of each text.