OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Forcible Entry Act 1381

* related portals: The Parliament of England.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Originally written in the Anglo-Norman language. The original text and English translation below (reproduced here in Roman script, without most accents in the original) are sourced from The Statutes, 1870 Revised Edition, Vol. I, p.227.

## Original text

Et Auxint le Roi defende q nully desore face entree en aucunes tres & teñz sinoun en cas ou entree est done p la loy, & en cell cas nemye a forte main ne a multitude des gentz, einz tantsoulement en [lisible & aisee] mane, et si nully desore face a contraire & ent soit convict duement soit puniz p emprisonment de son corps & dilloeqs reint a la voluntee le Roy.

## Translation into English

And also the King defendeth, that none from henceforth make any entry into lands and tenements, but in case where entry is given by the law; and in such case not with strong hand, nor with multitude of people, but only in [peaceable] and easy manner. And if any man from henceforth do the contrary, and thereof be duly convict, he shall be punished by imprisonment of his body, and thereof ransomed at the King's will.

## Notes

* ↑ Alternative reading due to Rot. Parl. nu." 71:"lisible aisee & peisible"
* ↑ Alternative reading in printed copies of the Act: "peasible & aisee"
* ↑ The Statutes, 1870 Revised Edition, Vol. I, p.227.
* ↑ Alternative reading: "lawful"
* ↑ The Statutes, 1870 Revised Edition, Vol. I, p.227.
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
# Forcible Entry Act 1623

* related portals: The Parliament of England.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
The text below is sourced from "The Statutes, Third Revised Edition", HMSO, 1950. The original text is written in Roman script as the editor could not reproduce the accents on the original. The text appears to have been revised by ommitting words which had been repealed. They are marked with ". . .". The source does not say which Act the repeals are due to.

## Revised text

AN ACTE to enable Judgs and Justics of the Peace to geve Restitucon of Possession in certayne Cases.
BE it enacted by the authoritie of this psent Parliament, that such judges justices or justice of the peace, as by reason of any Act or Acts of Parliament now in force, are authorised and enabled uppon enquiry to give restitucion of possession unto ten$^a$nts of any estate of freehold, of their lands or tenements, which shalbe entred uppon by force, or from them withholden by force, shall by reason of this psent Act have the like and the same authoritie and abilitie . . . uppon indictment of such forcible entries or forcible withholdinge before them duly found, to give like restitucion of possession unto ten$^a$nts for term of yeares, . . . of lands or tenements by them so holden, which shalbe entred uppon by force or holden from them by force.
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
# Folk-lore of the Telugus/Truth will come to Light

XVI.
TRUTH WILL COME TO LIGHT.
In days long gone by, there lived a wealthy merchant at Delhi. One of his servants purloined some of the property in the house and absconded the next day. The merchant thereupon instituted every search for the thief, but to no avail. Not long after, the merchant chanced to go to another city for business purposes. He there saw the servant who had committed the robbery walking in the street, so he seized him and taxed him with having stolen the property and absconding; but the fellow seized the merchant by the waist-cloth and clamorously demanded his property, saying that the merchant was his servant, that he had stolen the goods out of his house, that he had been looking out for him for many a day, and had now found him. He wanted him, therefore, to hand over the property and then go about his business. On this the real and the false merchants, still disputing, went before the Magistrate and ​represented their grievances. The Magistrate reflected a little, and ordered them both to put their heads through a window, and calling the executioner, said to him, "whoever is the servant, cut off his head." Now it came to pass that the fellow who had committed the robbery being really the servant, and hearing that they were going to cut off his head, withdrew it, while the merchant, on the contrary, never removed his head from the window. On this, the Magistrate discerning that the man, who withdrew his head, was really the servant who had robbed the house of the merchant, punished him severely.
# Folk-lore of the Telugus/Vanity of human wishes

XVIII.
VANITY OF HUMAN WISHES.
King Jayachchandra had two favourites, one a Mussalman and the other a Brahman, to whom he was constantly giving presents, by means of which they grew rich and lived happily. One day the king asked them by whose favour they enjoyed their happiness. The Mussalman immediately replied that he was indebted for his, solely to the sovereign; but the Brahman declared that he derived his from the grace of the Almighty. The king, wishing to put their assertions to the test, filled a pumpkin with pearls, which he delivered to the Mussalman, and at the same time presented the Brahman with two fanams. On their way home the former, not knowing the contents of the pumpkin, began to grumble at the king's present, and told the latter that he would sell it to him for his two fanams, to which the Brahman consented. When he broke it and found the immense wealth that it ​contained, he returned with great glee, and related the adventure to the King, whose vanity was completely cured by this occurrence. Unassisted by the hand of Providence human endeavours are fruitless.
# George Chapman, a critical essay

This work was published in 1875, and the transcription is of the first and only edition (a late binding judging by the inclusion of a publishers catalogue from 1882).
GEORGE CHAPMAN.
page
page
GEORGE CHAPMAN
A CRITICAL ESSAY.
BY
ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE.
LONDON: CHATTO AND WINDUS, PICCADILLY 1875.
page
* George Chapman
* Appendix
* Chatto & Windus's List of Books, June 1882
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
# George Bush & Sons Company v. Maloy (267 U.S. 317)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 317
George Bush & Sons Company v. Maloy
Argued: Jan. 16, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Messrs. Wm. L. Rawls and George Weems Williams, both of Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 318-319 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Thomas H. Robinson, Edward H. Burke and William N. Maloy, all of Baltimore, Md., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 320-322 intentionally omitted]
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
# George Bush & Sons Company v. Maloy (267 U.S. 325)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 325
George Bush & Sons Company v. Maloy (267 U.S. 325)
Argued: March 2, 1925. ---
The separate opinion of Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS.

## 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
# George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 286
George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid et al., Members of New York City Housing Authority, et al.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York
No. 673. Argued: April 30, 1968. --- Decided: June 10, 1968.
The Public Authorities Law of New York requires all contracts awarded by a public authority for work or services to provide that upon refusal of a "person" to testify before a grand jury, to answer relevant questions, or to waive immunity against subsequent prosecution, such person and any corporation of which he is an officer or director shall be disqualified for five years from contracting with any public authority and any existing contracts may be canceled by the authority without penalty or damages. Appellant corporation's president, who was also a director and stockholder, executed three painting contracts, on behalf of appellant, with the New York City Housing Authority. When appellant learned of an impending investigation of bid rigging, the president resigned and divested himself of his stock. He remained in appellant's employ as an "estimator." He was later subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and refused to sign a waiver of immunity. Appellant was notified that the contracts were canceled and that it and the president were disqualified for five years. The New York Court of Appeals denied relief to appellant, holding the disqualification valid and the statute constitutional. The court also rejected appellant's claim that it should not have been disqualified before its president resigned as president and director before being called to testify.
Held:
    1. The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is "a personal one, applying only to natural individuals," and since appellant corporation cannot avail itself of the privilege it cannot take advantage of the claimed invalidity of a penalty imposed for refusal of an individual, its president, to waive the privilege. Pp. 288-289.
    2. There is no reason to disturb the finding of the Court of Appeals that the resignation of the president was solely for the purpose of avoiding disqualification, and the conclusion of that court that the purported resignation should be disregarded for purposes of this case. P. 289.
20 N.Y. 2d 370, 229 N.E. 2d 602, affirmed.
Albert A. Blinder argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Theodore M. Ruzow and Stephen Hochhauser.
Paul W. Hessel argued the cause for appellee New York City Housing Authority. With him on the brief were Harry Levy and I. Stanley Stein. Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General of New York, arguea the cause for appellee Attorney General of New York. With him on the brief were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General.

## 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
# George Bush & Sons Company v. Maloy (267 U.S. 325)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 325
George Bush & Sons Company v. Maloy (267 U.S. 325)
Argued: March 2, 1925. ---
I am of opinion that the courts below reached correct conclusions in these causes.
The states have spent enormous sums in constructing roads, and must continue to maintain and protect them at great cost if they are to remain fit for travel.
The problems arising out of the sudden increase of motor vehicles present extraordinary difficulties. As yet nobody definitely knows what should be done. Manifestly, the exigency cannot be met through uniform rules laid down by Congress.
Interstate commerce has been greatly aided-amazingly facilitated, indeed-through legislation and expenditures by the states. The challenged statutes do not discriminate against such commerce, do not seriously impede it, and indicate an honest purpose to promote the best interest of all by preventing unnecessary destruction and keeping the ways fit for maximum service.
The federal government has not and cannot undertake precise regulation. Control by the states must continue; otherwise chaotic conditions will quickly develop. The problems are essentially local, and should be left with the local authorities unless and until something is done which really tends to obstruct the free flow of commercial in tercourse.
The situation is similar to the one growing out of the necessity for harbor regulations. State statutes concerning pilotage, for example, have been upheld although they amounted to regulation of interstate and foreign commerce. 'They fall within that class of powers which may be exercised by the state until Congress has seen fit to act upon the subject.' Olsen v. Smith, 195 U.S. 332, 341, 25 S.C.t. 52, 53 (49 L. Ed. 224).

## 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
# French v. Hay (89 U.S. 250)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
89 U.S. 250
French v. Hay (89 U.S. 250)
A stronger equity can hardly exist than that which is developed in favor of the appellee in the case before us.
The order of the court below, annulling the decree upon which the suit at law in Pennsylvania was founded, was fatal to that action, and entitled Hay to a perpetual injunction, without reference to the final result of the prior case.
This bill is not an original one.
It is auxiliary and dependent in its character, as much so as if it were a bill of review. The court having jurisdiction in personam had power to require the defendant to do or to refrain from doing anything beyond the limits of its territorial jurisdiction which it might have required to be done or omitted within the limits of such territory. Having the possession and jurisdiction of the case, that jurisdiction embraced everything in the case, and every question arising which could be determined in it until it reached its termination and the jurisdiction was exhausted. While the jurisdiction lasted it was exclusive, and could not be trenched upon by any other tribunal. The court below might, upon a cross-bill, and, perhaps, upon motion, have given the relief which was given by the interlocutory and the final decree in the case before us.
If it could not be given in this case the result would have shown the existence of a great defect in our Federal jurisprudence, and have been a reproach upon the administration of justice. In that event the payment of the annulled decree may be enforced in Pennsylvania, and Hay, notwithstanding the final decree in that case, and in this case, would find himself in exactly the same situation he would have been if those decrees had been against him instead of being in his favor. They would be nullities as regards any protection they could have given him. Instead of terminating the strife between him and his adversary, they would leave him under the necessity of engaging in a new conflict elsewhere. This would be contrary to the plainest principles of reason and justice.
The prohibition in the Judiciary Act against the granting of injunctions by the courts of the United States touching proceedings in State courts has no application here. The prior jurisdiction of the court below took the case out of the operation of that provision.
If the State courts should persist in proceeding-a thing not to be expected-the wrong will be on the part of those tribunals and not of the court below.
DECREE AFFIRMED.

## Notes

* ↑ Logan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288; Dunn v. Clark, 8 Peters, 1; Dunlap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349, 360; Clark v. Mathewson, 12 Peters, 164.
* ↑ Watts v. Waddle, 6 Peters, 391; Lewis v. Darling, 1 Howard, 1.
* ↑ Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Peters, 400; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 Howard, 484; Freeman v. How, 24 Id. 450; Taylor v. Tainter, 16 Wallace, 370.
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
# French v. Hopkins

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 524
French v. Hopkins
William M. Stewart, for motion.
J. W. Douglass, opposed.
WAITE, C. J.

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "French v. Shoemaker."
* 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.
* French v. Shoemaker (79 U.S. 86)
* French v. Shoemaker (81 U.S. 314)
# French v. Hopkins/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 524
French v. Hopkins
This motion is granted. The record fails to show, either expressly or by implication, that any 'right, title, privilege, or immunity,' under the constitution or laws o the United States, was 'specially set up or claimed' in either of the courts below. This is fatal to our jurisdiction. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131, 181, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21, 22. The only question below was whether a sale of mortgaged property, under a decree of foreclosure, should be set aside because the property had been sold 'as a whole and in one parcel,' when it was capable of division into parts. The court of original jurisdiction set aside the sale, but the supreme court, on appeal, confirmed it, and gave judgment accordingly. In doing this, it was held to be 'within the jurisdiction of the court by its judgment to direct that the property should be sold in one or several parcels,' and that there was nothing in the statutes of the state to the contrary of this. That was the only decision in the case, and it certainly involved no question of federal law. Counsel are in error in supposing that our jurisdiction, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, for the review of a decision of the highest court of a state, is dependent at all on the citizenship of the parties. In such cases we look only to the questions involved. 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
# Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (Greene)

* Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay in The dramatic works of Robert Greene, 1831. IA
* Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay in Robert Greene, 1909. IA

#### Derivative works

* Friar Bacon's Brass Head in Stories from Old English Poetry (1871), by Abby Sage Richardson
* Margaret, the Fair Maid of Fresingfield in Stories from Old English Poetry (1871), by Abby Sage Richardson
# Friday v. Hall & Kaul Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
216 U.S. 449
Friday v. Hall & Kaul Company
Argued: January 10, 1910. --- Decided: February 21, 1910
The Monongahela Construction Company, a corporation organized under the law of Pennsylvania, was, in an involuntary proceeding, adjudged a bankrupt in the district court for the western district of Pennsylvania. Upon a petition for review, filed by a judgment creditor, the adjudication was set aside upon the ground that the construction company was not 'a corporation engaged principally in manufacturing,' as found by the bankrupt court. The opinion of the circuit court of appeals is reported in 87 C. C. A. 23, 158 Fed. 593.
From the agreed statement of facts it appears:
1st. That the Monongahela Construction Company's charter sets out that it was organized 'for the purpose of constructing, erecting, and repairing railroads, traction lines, duly incorporated, and streets, roads, buildings, structures, works or improvements of public or private use or utility.'
2d. That its principal business had been 'making and constructing arches, walls, and abutments, bridges, buildings, etc., out of concrete.'
3d. That, 'in carrying on its business, it buys and combines together raw materials, such as cement, gravel, and sand in the making of concrete, and supplies labor, machinery, and appliances necessary for the proper carrying on of said business, of constructing and erecting concrete arches, piers, buildings, and structures, and excavating therefor at such time and place as its contracts call for.'
4th. It has no permanent shop or factory, but has a warehouse.
Messrs. Alexander J. Barron and Richard A. Ford for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from page 451 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George l. roberts and Eugene H. Baird for respondent.
Statement by Mr. Justice Lurton: Mr. Justice Lurton, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Frick v. Webb

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 326
Frick v. Webb
Argued: April 23, 24, 1923. --- Decided: Nov 19, 1923
Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 327-329 intentionally omitted]
Mr. U.S. Webb, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees
[Argument of Counsel from page 330 intentionally omitted].
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
# Frick v. Pennsylvania

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 473
Frick v. Pennsylvania
Argued: Dec. 7, 1923. --- Decided: June 1, 1925
[Syllabus from pages 473-475 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George Wharton Pepper, of Philadelphia, Pa., and George B. Gordon, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 475-479 intentionally omitted]
Mr. David A. Reed, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 479-486 intentionally omitted]
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
# Fribourg Navigation Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 272
FRIBOURG NAVIGATION COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Argued: Nov. 10, 1965. --- Decided: March 7, 1966
[Syllabus from pages 272-273 intentionally omitted]
James B. Lewis, New York City, for petitioner.
Jack S. Levin, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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