OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Spring Song

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Spring Song."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* "A Spring Song", a poem by Mathilde Blind
* "A Spring Song", a poem by C. J. Dennis
* "Spring Song", a poem by Paul Laurence Dunbar
* "Spring Song", a poem by Itō Sachio
* "Spring Song", a poem by František Kvapil
* "Spring Song", a poem by Robert Louis Stevenson
* "Spring Song", a poem by Julian Sturgis
* "Spring Song", a poem by Jaroslav Vrchlický

## See also

* Song
* Spring
* "Spring Song—To Ireland" by Dora Sigerson Shorter
* "Song of Spring", traditional
# Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages/Book II/The Count Palatine as Judge over the King

IX.
THE COUNT PALATINE AS JUDGE OVER THE KING.
Decree of the Nuremberg Diet, Nov. 19, 1274. (Altmauu u. Bernheim, p. 23.)
In public consistory, at the time of the solemn and royal court held at Nuremberg, the princes and a brilliant assembly of counts and barons being in session, and a very great multitude of nobles and commoners standing before the most serene lord Rudolph king of the Romans for the purpose of exhibiting the fulness of justice to each person,—the king first asked that it be defined by a decree who ought to be judge if the king of the Romans should have to bring any charge against any prince of the empire in the matter of imperial possessions and those belonging to the fisc, and concerning other injuries inflicted on the realm or on the king. And it was defined by all the princes and barons who were present, that the count Palatine of the Rhine has held of old, and does hold, the right of judging in processes which the emperor or king wishes to bring against a prince of the empire.
The said count Palatine, therefore, presiding over the tribunal, the king asked that it be first established by a decree what he, the king, might and should, according to law, do with the possessions which the former emperor Frederick had and held, peacefully and quietly, before the sentence of deposition was passed upon him by the princes; and also concerning possessions otherwise falling to the empire, which possessions others hold, occupying them through violence. And it was decreed that the king himself, in the matter of all such possessions, ought to assert his own claim, and bring back those same possessions into his power; and if any one should presume to oppose himself to the king in the recovering of such possessions, the king should repel with the royal power such hurtful violence, and to preserve the rights of the empire
# Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages/Book II/The Establishment of the Duchy of Austria

VII.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DUCHY OF AUSTRIA, SEPT. 17, 1156.
(Doeberl, iv. p. 88.)
In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Frederick, by favour of the divine mercy, august emperor of the Romans. Although a transfer of property may remain valid from the actual act of performing such transfer, and ​those things which are lawfully possessed can not be wrested away by any act of force: it is, however, the duty of our imperial authority to intervene lest there can be any doubt of the transaction. Be it known, therefore, to the present age and to future generations of our subjects, that we, aided by the grace of Him who sent peace for men from Heaven to earth, have, in the general court of Regens- burg which was held on the nativity of St. Mary the Virgin, in the presence of many of the clergy and the catholic princes, terminated the struggle and controversy concerning the duchy of Bavaria, which has long been carried on between our most beloved uncle, Henry duke of Austria, and our most dear nephew, Henry duke of Saxony. And it has been done in this way: that the duke of Austria has resigned to us the duchy of Bavaria, which we have straightway granted as a fief to the duke of Saxony. But the duke of Bavaria has resigned to us the march of Austria, with all its jurisdictions and with all the fiefs which the former margrave Leopold held from the duchy of Bavaria, Moreover, lest by this act the honour and glory of our most beloved uncle may seem in any way to be diminished,—by the counsel and judgment of the princes, Vladislav, the illustrious duke of Bohemia, proclaiming the decision, and all the princes approving,—we have changed the march of Austria into a duchy, and have granted that duchy with all its Jurisdictions to our aforesaid uncle Henry and his most noble wife Theodora as a fief; decreeing by a perpetual law that they and their children alike, whether sons or daughters, shall, by hereditary right, hold and possess that same duchy of Austria from the empire. But if the aforesaid duke of Austria, our uncle, and his wife should die without children, they shall have the privilege of leaving that duchy to whomever they wish. We decree, further, that no person, small or great, may presume to exercise any jurisdiction in the governing of that duchy without the consent or permission of the duke. The duke of Austria, moreover, shall not owe any other service to the empire from his duchy, except that, when he is summoned, he shall come to the courts which the emperor shall announce in Bavaria. And he shall be bound to go on no military expedition, unless the emperor ordain ​one against the countries or provinces adjoining Austria. For the rest, in order that this our imperial decree may, for all ages, remain valid and unshaken, we have ordered the present charter to be written and to be sealed with the impress of our seal, suitable witnesses to be called in whose names are as follows: Pilgrim, patriarch of Aquileija, etc. etc.
# St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling (127 U.S. 376)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 376
St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling
Chas. S.C.areins, for motion.
John B. Sanborn and W. H. Sanborn, in opposition.
GRAY, 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
# St. Paul Railway Company v. Greenalgh

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
139 U.S. 19
St. Paul Railway Company v. Greenalgh
S. U. Pinney, for appellant.
S. J. R. McMillan, for appellees.
FIELD, 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
# St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company v. Red Cab Company

United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 283
St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company v. Red Cab Company
Argued: Jan. 10, 1938. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1938
Mr. Burke G. Slaymaker, of Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner.
Mr. William E. Reiley, of Indianapolis, Ind., 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
# St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling."
* 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.
* St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling (127 U.S. 376)
* St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling (140 U.S. 184)
# St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling (140 U.S. 184)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
140 U.S. 184
St. Paul Plow-Works v. Starling

## 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
# State of Missouri Laclede Gaslight Company v. Murphy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
170 U.S. 78
State of Missouri Laclede Gaslight Company v. Murphy

## 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
# State of Missouri Walker v. Walker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 339
State of Missouri Walker v. Walker
W. M. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
B. G. Boone, for defendant in error.
The following opinion, prepared by Mr. Chief Justice WAITE, was delivered by the court as its opinion:

## 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
# State of Oregon v. City of Rajneeshpuram

* related portals: Oregon.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
1984-1985. State of Oregon v. City of Rajneeshpuram. United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Note: This case encompasses multiple rulings by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon over the course of 1984 to 1985.
* 1984 03 23 — United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied motion by State of Oregon to move back to state court from federal court.
* 1984 05 25 — The court denied defendant's motion to vacate plaintiff's dismissal. The court also denied defendant's motion to enjoin further proceedings on plaintiff's second complaint.
* 1984 07 17 — The court denied plaintiff's motion to remand to state court from federal court.
* 1984 10 02 — The court denied the State of Oregon and Wasco County's motions for reconsideration. The court granted the State of Oregon's motion to amend the prior order to allow immediate appeal.
* 1984 10 12 — The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
* 1984 11 16 — The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary order which had sought a ruling ordering that the incorporation of the City of Rajneeshpuram was unconstitutional.
* 1984 12 07 — The court granted defendants' motion for judicial notice. The court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration. The court vacated the order staying discovery.
* 1985 03 13 — The court denied plaintiff's motion for a summary order; denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of defendants' motion to join additional parties; and granted plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to respond to the merits of defendants' motion to join additional parties.
* 1985 04 26 — The court granted defendants' motion to join additional parties.
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
# State of Missouri v. Iowa

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
165 U.S. 118
State of Missouri v. Iowa
R. F. Walker, for complainant.
Milton Remley, for defendant.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER announced the decree 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
# Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory."
* 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.
* "Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory", Christmas hymn by Edward Caswall
* "Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory", Eucharistic hymn by Thomas Aquinas, tr. Edward Caswall

## See also

* Pange lingua
# Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory (Corpus Christi)

Also published with the title Feast of Corpus Christi, this translation of the Latin hymn Pange lingua was first published in Caswall's Lyra Catholica, 1849.
* "Feast of Corpus Christi" in Catholic Hymns (1st ed.), 1853.
* "Feast of Corpus Christi" in Catholic Hymns (2nd ed.), 1860.
# Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle

This translation of Fortunatus's 6th-century latin hymn Pange lingua first appeared in Neale's Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences in 1951.
* "Pange lingua gloriosi" in Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences (3rd ed., 1867).
* Quoted in full in Good Friday (1920).
# Sing, Gondolier!

* Sing, Gondolier!, in The New Monthly Magazine Volume 40 (Songs for Evening Music), 1834.
* Sing to me, Gondolier, in National Lyrics, and Songs for Music, 1834.
# Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory (Christmas)

Also known as Christmas Hymn, this hymn was first published in Caswall's Lyra Catholica, 1849.
* "Christmas Hymn" in Catholic Hymns (1st ed.), 1853.
* "Christmas Hymn" in Catholic Hymns (2nd ed.), 1860.
# Sing a Song for Sixpence (Caldecott)

| ​ Printed in Great Britain | ​ SING A SONG FOR SIXPENCE | ​ |
Sing a Song for Sixpence,
| ​ A Pocketfull | ​ of Rye; |
| ​ | ​ Four-and-Twenty Blackbirds |
| ​ Baked | ​ in a Pie. |
| ​ | ​ When the Pie was opened, The Birds began to sing; |
| ​ Was not that | ​ a dainty Dish |
| ​ | ​ To set before the King? |
| ​ The King was in | ​ his Counting-house, |
| ​ Counting out his Money. | ​ |
| ​ The Queen was in | ​ the Parlour, |
| ​ Eating Bread and Honey. | ​ |
| ​ The Maid was in | ​ the Garden, |
| ​ Hanging out the Clothes; | ​ |
| ​ There came a little Blackbird, | ​ And snapped off her Nose |
| ​ But there came a Jenny Wren and popped it on again. | ​ |
PRINTED AND COPYRIGHTED BY EDMUND EVANS, LTD., ROSE PLACE, GLOBE ROAD, LONDON, E.I.
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
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra/Act 1 Scene 3

Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth/Act 5 Scene 4

Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra/Act 1 Scene 1

THE TRAGEDIE OF Anthonie, and Cleopatra.
Actus primus. Scœna Prima.
Enter Demetrius and Philo.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth/Act 5 Scene 5

Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth/Act 5 Scene 7

FINIS
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth/Act 5 Scene 2

Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth/Act 5 Scene 3

Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra/Act 1 Scene 2

Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth/Act 5 Scene 6

Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra

With the exception of Act I., Scene I., there are no scene demarcations of the form used in other works in this folio. Breaks for Acts and Scenes have been introduced based on stage directions and following later editions.
Act I.
* Act I: Scene I
* Act I: Scene II
* Act I: Scene III
* Act I: Scene IV
* Act I: Scene V
Act II.
* Act II: Scene I
* Act II: Scene II
* Act II: Scene III
* Act II: Scene IV
* Act II: Scene V
* Act II: Scene VI
* Act II: Scene VII
Act III.
* Act III: Scene I
* Act III: Scene II
* Act III: Scene III
* Act III: Scene IV
* Act III: Scene V
* Act III: Scene VI
* Act III: Scene VII
* Act III: Scene VIII
* Act III: Scene IX
* Act III: Scene X
* Act III: Scene XI
* Act III: Scene XI
* Act III: Scene XIII
Act IV.
* Act IV: Scene I
* Act IV: Scene II
* Act IV: Scene III
* Act IV: Scene IV
* Act IV: Scene V
* Act IV: Scene VI
* Act IV: Scene VII
* Act IV: Scene VIII
* Act IV: Scene IX
* Act IV: Scene X
* Act IV: Scene XI
* Act IV: Scene XII
* Act IV: Scene XIII
* Act IV: Scene XIV
* Act IV: Scene XV
Act V.
* Act V: Scene I
* Act V: Scene II
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
# St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Nip and Tuck

St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Saturday, February 6, 1886, Page 8
NIP AND TUCK
Steinitz Wins Another Game
and Draws Up Near Zukertort
Another bewildering account of yesterday's chess battle was presented by the morning papers. The record of the game presented a confusing difference which would muddle the best chess player. The contest was so brilliant throughout, the attack of Steinitz so well maintained, and the extraordinary prescience shown by Steinitz in his thirty-second move was so remarkable, that the game is not only entitled to rank as the best of the series, but as one qualified in every respect to delight the hearts of chess players the world over. There can be little question that such is the verdict of the groups of players who gather in the leading cities of this country and Europe this morning to discuss the game. The importance of the contest is such that the official score in presented below in order to let the chess players follow the different moves without being puzzled by any mistakes.
A larger number of persons than were at the previous game filled the rooms in the Harmonie club up to the very finish which was shortly before 9 o'clock. Close attention was paid to every move but no particular demonstration was made until the thirty-second move was made by Steinitz. It happened so that this play produced a dramatic effect. It is the rule for the second player when the time comes for a recess to record his move on a piece of paper and seal it up in an envelope and give it to his opponent's second who, upon play being resumed, announces what the move is and the piece is so placed. Last night, although the room was filled with chess players of ability, not one imagined what Steinitz would move after the recess, and it never occurred to any amateur head present that the bishop would be handled first. When this was done and the piece was put on the king's fourth square and check was called, the advantage so brilliantly secured was evident to all and the greatest enthusiasm of the series was noticeable in the audience who could scarcely repress loud expressions of admiration. In just three move moves the white was cornered and, as Zukertort had but one additional move, that to the king's rook's fourth, he gracefully resigned without more ado. At the conclusion, Zukertort tried to get Steinitz to play it over from the twenty-eight move just for fun as Zukertort claimed his twenty-ninth lost him the chance to draw. Steinitz was too tired to do it, and so Zukertort demonstrated alone the disaster produced by the twenty-ninth. The score now stands Zukertort 4, Steinitz 3.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# St. Louis Mining & Milling Company of Montana v. Montana Mining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
194 U.S. 235
St. Louis Mining & Milling Company of Montana v. Montana Mining Company
Argued: April 21, 1904. --- Decided: May 2, 1904
This was a suit brought by the appellee (hereinafter called the Montana company) against the appellants (hereinafter called the St. Louis company) in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Montana, for an injunction restraining the further prosecution of a tunnel. The facts were agreed upon, and are substantially that the Montana company was the owner and in possession of the Nine Hour lode mining claim under a patent from the United States, on a location made under the mining acts of 1872 and acts amendatory thereof; that the St. Louis company was the owner of the St. Louis lode mining claim, holding the same under a similar title. In the St. Louis claim is a vein other than the discovery vein, having its apex within the surface limits of the St. Louis claim, but on its dip passing out of the side line of the St. Louis claim into the Nine Hour claim. The tunnel was 260 feet underground, running from the St. Louis into the Nine Hour claim and for the purpose of reaching the vein on its descent through the latter. It was run horizontally through country rock, and between the east line of the St. Louis claim and the vein above referred to will not intersect any other vein or lode. The St. Louis company did not propose to extend the tunnel beyond the point at which it would intersect the vein above referred to, and simply proposed to use this cross-cut tunnel in working and mining said vein. The circuit court, upon the facts agreed to, enjoined the further prosecution of the tunnel. That injunction was sustained by the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit (51 C. C. A. 530, 113 Fed. 900) from whose decision the St. Louis company has brought the case to this court.
Messrs. E. W. Toole and Thomas C. Bach for appellants.
Mr. W. E. Cullen for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
Mr. Justice Brewer 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