OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book IV/Hymn 33

33. To Agni: for release from evil.
[Brahman.—aṣṭarcam. pāpmanyam; āgneyam, gāyatram.]
Found in Pāipp. iv. Is RV. i. 97, without a variant except in the last verse; occurs also in TA. (vi. 11. 1). Reckoned by Kāuç. (9. 2) to the bṛhachānti gaṇa, and also (30. 17, note) to the pāpma gaṇa; used, under the name of apāgha, in a ceremony of expiation for seeing ill-omened sights (42. 22), in a women's ceremony for preventing undesirable love and the like (36. 22), and in the after funeral ceremonies (82. 4).
Translated: by the RV. translators; and Griffith, i. 175; Weber, xviii. 134.—Cf. also Lanman, Skt. Reader, p. 363.
1. Gleaming (çuc) away our evil (aghá), O Agni, gleam thou wealth unto [us]: gleaming away our evil.
This first verse is found a second time in TA. (vi. 10. i). The refrain is a mechanical repetition of 1 a, having no connection of meaning with any of the verses. The comm. explains ápa çóçucat by naçyatu, and ā́ çuçugdhi by samṛddhaṁ kuru. ⌊TA. reads çuçudhyā́ in both places in both editions.⌋
2. With desire of pleasant fields, of welfare, of good things, we sacrifice—gleaming away our evil—
3. In order that the most excellent of them, and in order that our patrons (sūrí)—gleaming away our evil—
4. In order that thy patrons, O Agni; in order [namely] that we may be propagated for thee with progeny—gleaming away our evil—
5. As of the powerful Agni the lusters (bhānú) go forth in every direction—gleaming away our evil.
These four verses are (rejecting the intrusive refrain) one connected sentence: the prá's in vss. 3 and 4 repeat by anticipation the jā́yemahi prá of vs. 4 b; "we" are, in fact, Agni's sūri's, since we depute him to sacrifice for us, just as our sūri's procure us, the priests; and our progeny is to increase and spread like the brightness of the fire. TA. spoils the connection by putting vs. 5 before vs. 4; and the sense, by reading sūráyas for bhānávas in 5 b. Ppp. has jāyemahe in 4 b. One of our pada-mss. (Op.) agrees with the RV. pada-text in dividing sugātu॰yā́ in 2 a (the rest read su॰gātuyā́).
6. For, O thou that facest in every direction, thou art [our] encompasser on all sides: gleaming away our evil.
7. Our haters, O thou that facest in every direction, do thou make us pass over as with a boat: gleaming away our evil.
8. Do thou pass us over unto well-being, as [over] a river with a boat: gleaming away our evil.
Ppp. agrees with RV. ⌊and TA.⌋ in reading nāváyā (which implies síndhum ’va) instead of nāvā́ at end of a; and our O. has the same.
# Blaise Pascal/Thoughts

PASCAL'S THOUGHTS
THOUGHTS :
$_{page}$Section I$_{page}$ :
Section II :
Section III :
Section IV :
Section V :
Section VI :
Section VII :
Section VIII :
Section IX :
Section X :
Section XI :
Section XII :
Section XIII :
Section XIV :
# Between the Lights

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Between the Lights."
* 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.
* "Between the Lights", short story by E. F. Benson
* "Between the Lights", poem by Sarah Doudney
# Brockington v. Rhodes

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 41
Brockington v. Rhodes
Argued: Oct. 22, 1969. ---
Mandamus proceeding to compel Governor of Ohio and others to place plaintiff's name on ballot for November, 1968 election as an independent candidate for United States House of Representatives from a particular district. The Court of Common Pleas denied writ of mandamus, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District affirmed the judgment, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial constitutional question, and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court held that case was moot because congressional election was over.
Judgment of Supreme Court of Ohio vacated and cause remanded for such proceedings as that court might deem appropriate.
Benjamin Sheerer, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Robert D. Macklin, Columbus, Ohio, for appellees.
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
# Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
130 U.S. 341
Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Company
The act of 1875 declares that no circuit or district court shall have 'cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the lawmerchant, and bills of exchange.' 18 St. 470. It does not appear that the What Cheer Land & Coal Company, the plaintiffs' assignor, could have brought suit on the contract in question if no assignment had been made. The record does not show of what state it is a corporation. The allegation that it was 'doing business in the state of Iowa' does not necessarily import that it was created by the laws of that state. But, if that allegation were held sufficient to show it was an Iowa corporation, the result would be the same, because, in that case, it would appear that the parties to the original contract were all citizens of Iowa, and consequently that the assignor could not have sued the defendants in the circuit court of the United States. The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not appear, affirmatively, from the record that the circuit court had jurisdiction, (Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 588, ante, 173,) and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.

## 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
# Brock v. Richardson

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* 812 F.2d 121
* WILLIAM E. BROCK, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant-Cross-Appellee
* v.
* HOMER ALAN RICHARDSON, d/b/a RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION, Appellee-Cross-Appellant
* No. 86-3118, 86-3119
* United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
* November 3, 1986, Argued
* February 18, 1987, Filed
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. D.C. Civil. No. 82-0099.
Marshall Harris, Regional Solicitor, George R. Salem, Deputy Solicitor of Labor, Monica Gallagher, Associate Solicitor, Linda Jan S. Pack, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Carol Arnold (Argued) Attorney United States Department of Labor, Attorneys for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Henry Miller, III (Argued) Attorney for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Sloviter and Stapleton, Circuit Judges, and Green, District Judge.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Hon. Clifford Scott Green, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by de-signation.
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
# Brockett v. Brockett

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Brockett v. Brockett."
* 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.
* Brockett v. Brockett (43 U.S. 238)
* Brockett v. Brockett (44 U.S. 691)
# Brockett v. Brockett (44 U.S. 691)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 691
Brockett v. Brockett
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in and for the county of Alexandria.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Neale and Bradley, for the appellants.
Jones and Brent, for the appellees.
Mr. Justice McLEAN 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
# Brockett v. Brockett (43 U.S. 238)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
43 U.S. 238
Brockett v. Brockett
A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal upon several grounds. The first is, that although all the defendants have appealed from the decree of the court below, yet a part of them, only, have signed the appeal bond. This objection is not maintainable. It is not necessary that all the defendants should join in the appeal bond, although all must join in the appeal. It is sufficient if the appeal bond is approved by the court, as satisfactory and complete security, by whomsoever it may be executed.
The next ground is, that an appeal has been taken from the refusal of the court below to open the former decree, rendered for the appellant. It is plain that no appeal lies to this court in such a matter, as it rests merely in the sound discretion of the court below. And if this had been the sole appeal in the case, the appeal must have been dismissed. But an appeal has also been taken to the first decree (which was a final decree) rendered by the court. That decree was rendered on the 10th of May, 1843. During the same term, a petition was filed by the defendants on the 26th day of the same month, to have the final decree opened for certain purposes; and the court took cognizance of the petition and referred it to a master commissioner. His report was made on the 9th of June following, the same term still continuing; and the court then refused to open the final decree; and from this refusal as well as from the final decree, the defendants took an appeal, and gave bond with sufficient sureties, on the 15th day of the same month, and the appeal was then allowed by the court. Before that time the court has not fixed the penalty of the bond.
Now, the argument is, that as the original final decree was rendered more than one month before the appeal, it could not operate under the laws of the United States as a supersedeas, or to stay execution on the decree; because to have such an effect the appeal should be made and the bond should be given within ten days after the final decree. But the short and conclusive answer to this objection is, that the final decree of the 10th of May was suspended by the subsequent action of the court; and it did not take effect until the 9th of June, and that the appeal was duly taken and the appeal bond given within ten days from this last period.
Another and the last ground of exception is to the want of proper parties to the writ of error and citation. No writ of error lies in this case, but an appeal only; and the appeal having been made in open court, no citation was necessary.
Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal ought to be overruled, and it is accordingly overruled.

## 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
# Bryan v. Ker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 107
Bryan v. Ker
Argued: October 25 and 26, 1911. --- Decided: November 20, 1911
Assistant Attorney General Denison and Mr. Loring C. Christie for petitioner.
Messrs. J. P. Kennedy Bryan and M. C. Butler for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 108-110 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
# Bryan v. Pinney/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 419
Bryan v. Pinney
This was an action of ejectment brought by T. J. Bryan in the district court of the Second judicial district of the territory of Arizona, against D. H. Pinney, Mary E. Pinney, M. H. Sherman, George H. Mitchell, George W. Maull, ahd the Bank of Napa, to recover possession of block 98 in the town of Phoenix, county of Maricopa. The facts of this case, so far as they present questions for our consideration, are similar to those of the case of Bryan v. Brasius (just decided) 16 Sup. Ct. 803, and for the reasons there given, and on the authorities there cited, the judgment of the supreme court of Arizona (31 Pac. 548) is 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
# Bryan v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Bryan v. United States."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Bryan v. United States (66 U.S. 140)
* Bryan v. United States (338 U.S. 552)
See also United States v. Bryan.
# Bryan v. Kales (162 U.S. 411)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 411
Bryan v. Kales
Whether the judgment in the case of Kales v. Kales, Administrator of the Estate of Jonathan M. Bryan, was void, because of the alleged fact that the plaintiff, suing as a creditor of the estate to foreclose a mortgage, was the same person who, as defendant, represented the estate; whether the judgment was open to attack collaterally; and whether Mrs. Vina Brown, who was the widow and sole heir of Jonathan M. Bryan, was estopped from assailing the judgment by reason of having appeared and answered in the foreclosure suit, acknowledging the debt, and consenting to the sale,-are questions which we deem it unnecessary to determine. There was another ground of defense, so conclusive and free from difficulty that we prefer to place upon it our judgment affirming that of the court below.
It is admitted that the defendant below was a mortgagee in possession, with his debt past due and unpaid. The plaintiff was not offering to redeem, and had not tendered payment of the debt, but stood on the bare legal title, subject, if the foreclosure proceedings were void, to the lien of the unpaid mortgage, and to the right of the mortgagee to retain possession until his debt was paid. This is the English doctrine, and it prevails generally in the United States. Birch v. Wright, 1 Term R. 378; Simpson v. Ammons, 1 Bin. 176; Hill v. Payson, 3 Mass. 559; Parsons v. Wells, 17 Mass. 419; Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. 519. And such, as we learn from the opinion of the supreme court of the territory of Arizona in the present case, is the law of that territory.
The judgment of the supreme court of the territory of Arizona is accordingly 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
# Bryan v. Pinney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 419
Bryan v. Pinney
Wm. A. McKenney, for appellant.
D. H. Pinney, for appellees.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS 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
# Bryan v. United States (338 U.S. 552)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 552
Bryan v. United States (338 U.S. 552)
Argued: Dec. 13-14, 1949. --- Decided: Jan 16, 1950
See 338 U.S. 957, 70 S.Ct. 491.
Mr. Carl J. Batter, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Miss Melva M. Graney, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Paracel Islands

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Poland

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Palmyra Atoll

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Papua New Guinea

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Philippines

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Pitcairn Islands

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Paraguay

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Peru

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Palau

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Panama

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# Burning Daylight
### Part I

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII

### Part II

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
* Chapter XXV
* Chapter XXVI
* Chapter XXVII
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
# Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume II. Historical Books

* Introduction to the prophetical histories of the old testament
* Joshua
* Judges
* Ruth
* 1 Samuel
* 2 Samuel
* 1 Kings
* 2 Kings
# Boston Cooking-School Cook Book

* information about this edition.
* related portals: Cookbooks.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
First published 1896, the updated version herein presented was published in 1918, after Farmers' death.
(Upload an image to replace this placeholder.)
THE
BOSTON COOKING-SCHOOL
COOK BOOK
BY
FANNIE MERRITT FARMER
AUTHOR OF "A NEW BOOK OF COOKERY", "CHAFING-DISH POSSIBILITIES", AND "FOOD AND COOKERY FOR THE SICK AND CONVALESCENT"
REVISED EDITION
WITH ADDITIONAL CHAPTERS ON THE COLD PACK METHOD OF CANNING, ON THE DRYING OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, AND ON FOOD VALUES
WITH OVER 133 HALF-TONE ILLUSTRATIONS
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1919
Copyright, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1914,
By Fannie Merritt Farmer
Copyright, 1918,
By Mary W. Farmer
TO
MRS. WILLIAM B. SEWALL,
IN APPRECIATION OF HER HELPFUL ENCOURAGEMENT AND UNTIRING EFFORTS IN PROMOTING THE WORK OF SCIENTIFIC COOKERY, WHICH MEANS THE ELEVATION OF THE HUMAN RACE,
THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED
By the Author.
PREFACE
"But for life the universe were nothing; and all that has life requires nourishment."
With the progress of knowledge the needs of the human body have not been forgotten. During the last decade much time has been given by scientists to the study of foods and their dietetic value, and it is a subject which rightfully should demand much consideration from all. I certainly feel that the time is not far distant when a knowledge of the principles of diet will be an essential part of one's education. Then mankind will eat to live, will be able to do better mental and physical work, and disease will be less frequent.
At the earnest solicitation of educators, pupils, and friends, I have been urged to prepare this book, and I trust it may be a help to many who need its aid. It is my wish that it may not only be looked upon as a compilation of tried and tested recipes, but that it may awaken an interest through its condensed scientific knowledge which will lead to deeper thought and broader study of what to eat.
F. M. F.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| | Facing Page |
| Pickles ready for serving and Crock for keeping Pickles | 577 |
| Red Peppers being prepared for canning | 577 |
| Table laid for Breakfast | 592 |
| Luncheon Table laid for Fish Course | 593 |
| Table laid for Formal Luncheon | 596 |
| Centrepiece for Luncheon or Dinner Table | 597 |
| Centrepiece for Thanksgiving Dinner Table | 597 |
| Christmas Dinner Table | 600 |
| Table laid for Reception . | 601 |
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
# Boston Company v. O'Reilly

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
158 U.S. 334
Boston Company v. O'Reilly
In October, 1890, Patrick J. O'Reilly, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, brought an action against the Boston & Albany Railroad Company for personal injuries received while riding as a passenger on one of that company's trains.
The declaration contained three counts, alleging negligence on the part of the company in respect to the condition of a certain truck attached to the tender of the engine which drew the train, in respect to the journal of the tender, and in respect to the condition of the defendant's track, rails, and roadbed. The defendant's answer consisted of an general denial. The trial resulted in a verdict for the sum of $15,000, and to the judgment entered for that amount a writ of error was sued out of this court.
Samuel Hoar, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. W. Needham and John B. Cotton, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS 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
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Lingadari

​Lingadari. — A general term, meaning one who wears a lingam, for Lingāyat,
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Liyāri

​Liyāri. — See Kēvuto.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Lingakatti

​Lingakatti. — A name applied to Lingāyat Badagas of the Nīlgiri hills.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Lohana

​Lohana.— Immigrant traders from the Bombay Presidency. "They state that they take their name from the port of Loha in Sindh, but Burton says that they came from Lohānpur near Multān, and that they were driven south by the Muhammadans. They reverence the Daria Pīr, or the Indus spirit."*
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Loliya

​Loliya.— A synonym for Jalāri.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Lombo-lanjiā

​Lombo-lanjiā (long tail). — A sub-division of Savaras, which is so called because its members leave, at the buttocks, one end of the long piece of cloth, which they wear round the waist.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Lingam

​Lingam.— A title of Jangams and Sīlavants.