OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Beaufort Concrete Company v. Atlantic States Construction Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 1004
Beaufort Concrete Company v. Atlantic States Construction Company
J. P. Harrelson, for petitioner.
Irvine F. Belser, Jr., for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice BLACK:

## 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
# Canzoniere/Poem CXL

Three English translations (all public domain) from the original Italian.
SONNET CIX.
Amor che nel pensier mio vive et regna.
THE COURAGE AND TIMIDITY OF LOVE.
# Canzoniere/Poem I

SONNET
Voi, ch' ascoltate in rime sparse il suono
HE CONFESSES THE VANITY OF HIS PASSION
 Ye who in rhymes dispersed the echoes hear  Of those sad sighs with which my heart I fed  When early youth my mazy wanderings led,  Fondly diverse from what I now appear,  Fluttering 'twixt frantic hope and frantic fear,  From those by whom my various style is read,  I hope, if e'er their hearts for love have bled,  Not only pardon, but perhaps a tear.  But now I clearly see that of mankind  Long time I was the tale: whence bitter thought  And self-reproach with frequent blushes teem;  While of my frenzy, shame the fruit I find,  And sad repentance, and the proof, dear-bought,  That the world's joy is but a flitting dream.
 CHARLEMONT.
 O ye, who list in scatter'd verse the sound  Of all those sighs with which my heart I fed,  When I, by youthful error first misled,  Unlike my present self in heart was found;  Who list the plaints, the reasonings that abound  Throughout my song, by hopes, and vain griefs bred;  If e'er true love its influence o'er ye shed,  Oh! let your pity be with pardon crown'd.  But now full well I see how to the crowd  For length of time I proved a public jest:  E'en by myself my folly is allow'd:  And of my vanity the fruit is shame,  Repentance, and a knowledge strong imprest,  That worldly pleasure is a passing dream.
 NOTT.
 Ye, who may listen to each idle strain  Bearing those sighs, on which my heart was fed  In life's first morn, by youthful error led,  (Far other then from what I now remain!)  That thus in varying numbers I complain,  Numbers of sorrow vain and vain hope bred,  If any in love's lore be practised,  His pardon,--e'en his pity I may obtain:  But now aware that to mankind my name  Too long has been a bye-word and a scorn,  I blush before my own severer thought;  Of my past wanderings the sole fruit is shame,  And deep repentance, of the knowledge born  That all we value in this world is naught.
 DACRE.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Cantwell v. Connecticut

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), was a United States Supreme Court decision that incorporated (applied to the states) the First Amendment's protection of religious free exercise. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
310 U.S. 296
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Argued: March 29, 1940. --- Decided: May 20, 1940
Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of New York City, for appellants and petitioners.
Messrs. Edwin S. Pickett, of New Haven, Conn., and Francis A. Pallotti, of Hartford, Conn, for appellee and respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 297-299 intentionally omitted]
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
# Canzoniere/Poem II

SONNET
Per far una leggiadra sua vendetta
HOW HE BECAME THE VICTIM OF LOVE.
 For many a crime at once to make me smart,  And a delicious vengeance to obtain,  Love secretly took up his bow again,  As one who acts the cunning coward's part;  My courage had retired within my heart,  There to defend the pass bright eyes might gain;  When his dread archery was pour'd amain  Where blunted erst had fallen every dart.  Scared at the sudden brisk attack, I found  Nor time, nor vigour to repel the foe  With weapons suited to the direful need;  No kind protection of rough rising ground,  Where from defeat I might securely speed,  Which fain I would e'en now, but ah, no method know!
 NOTT.
 One sweet and signal vengeance to obtain  To punish in a day my life's long crime,  As one who, bent on harm, waits place and time,  Love craftily took up his bow again.  My virtue had retired to watch my heart,  Thence of weak eyes the danger to repell,  When momently a mortal blow there fell  Where blunted hitherto dropt every dart.  And thus, o'erpower'd in that first attack,  She had nor vigour left enough, nor room  Even to arm her for my pressing need,  Nor to the steep and painful mountain back  To draw me, safe and scathless from that doom,  Whence, though alas! too weak, she fain had freed.
 MACGREGOR.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Canute Company v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 244
Canute Company v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Company
Argued: Nov. 12, 1923. ---
Mr. Charles R. Hickox, of New York City, for petitioners.
Messrs. Thomas F. Barrett, of Clarksburg, W. Va., and Theodore Kiendl, of New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Canzoniere/Poem III

SONNET
Era 'l giorno ch' al sol si scoloraro
HE BLAMES LOVE FOR WOUNDING HIM ON A HOLY DAY (GOOD FRIDAY).
 'Twas on the morn, when heaven its blessed ray  In pity to its suffering master veil'd,  First did I, Lady, to your beauty yield,  Of your victorious eyes th' unguarded prey.  Ah! little reck'd I that, on such a day,  Needed against Love's arrows any shield;  And trod, securely trod, the fatal field:  Whence, with the world's, began my heart's dismay.  On every side Love found his victim bare,  And through mine eyes transfix'd my throbbing heart;  Those eyes, which now with constant sorrows flow:  But poor the triumph of his boasted art,  Who thus could pierce a naked youth, nor dare  To you in armour mail'd even to display his bow!
 WRANGHAM.
 'Twas on the blessed morning when the sun  In pity to our Maker hid his light,  That, unawares, the captive I was won,  Lady, of your bright eyes which chain'd me quite;  That seem'd to me no time against the blows  Of love to make defence, to frame relief:  Secure and unsuspecting, thus my woes  Date their commencement from the common grief.  Love found me feeble then and fenceless all,  Open the way and easy to my heart  Through eyes, where since my sorrows ebb and flow:  But therein was, methinks, his triumph small,  On me, in that weak state, to strike his dart,  Yet hide from you so strong his very bow.
 MACGREGOR.
# Carey v. Population Services International/Concurrence White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions White Powell Stevens
* Dissenting Opinion Rehnquist
Mr. Justice White, concurring in part and concurring in the result.
I join Parts I, III, and V of the Court's opinion and concur in the result with respect to Part IV.
Although I saw no reason in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), to reach "the novel constitutional question whether a State may restrict or forbid the distribution of contraceptives to the unmarried," id., at 465 (concurring in result), four of the seven Justices participating in that case held that in this respect the rights of unmarried persons were equal to those of the married. Given Eisenstadt and given the decision of the Court in the abortion case, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the result reached by the Court in Part III of its opinion appears warranted. I do not regard the opinion, however, as declaring unconstitutional any state law forbidding extramarital sexual relations. On this assumption I join Part III.
I concur in the result in Part IV primarily because the State has not demonstrated that the prohibition against distribution of contraceptives to minors measurably contributes to the deterrent purposes which the State advances as justification for the restriction. Again, however, the legality of state laws forbidding premarital intercourse is not at issue here; and, with Mr. Justice Steve, "I would describe as 'frivolous' appellees' argument that a minor has the constitutional right to put contraceptives to their intended use, notwithstanding the combined objection of both parents and the State," post, at 713.
In joining Part V of the Court's opinion, I should also say that I agree with the views of Mr. Justice Stevens expressed in Part II of his separate opinion.

#### Notes

* ↑ . There is no need for present purposes to agree or disagree with the Court's summary of the law expressed in Part II.
# Carey v. South Dakota

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
250 U.S. 118
Carey v. South Dakota
Argued: April 29, 1919. --- Decided: May 19, 1919
W. E. Carey was prosecuted by the State of South Dakota for shipping game birds.
Judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state (39 S. D. 524, 165 N. W. 539), and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Mr. Joe Kirby, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Clarence C. Caldwell and Edwin R. Winans, both of Sioux Falls, S. D., for State of South Dakota.
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
# Cambridge Rules (1856)

Laws of the Cambridge University Football Club (1856). This is the earliest extant codification of the laws of football from Cambridge; earlier sets of laws from c. 1838, 1846 and 1848 are said to have been created, but no copies of them survive.
LAWS
OF THE
University Foot Ball Club.
1. This Club shall be called the University Foot Ball Club.
2. At the commencement of the play, the ball shall be kicked off from the middle of the ground: after every goal there shall be a kick-off in the same way.
3. After a goal, the losing side shall kick off; the sides changing goals, unless a previous arrangement be made to the contrary.
4. The ball is out when it has passed the line of the flag-posts on either side of the ground, in which case it shall be thrown in straight.
5. The ball is behind when it has passed the goal on either side of it.
6. When the ball is behind it shall be brought forward at the place where it left the ground, not more than ten paces, and kicked off.
7. Goal is when the ball is kicked through the flag-posts and under the string.
8. When a player catches the ball directly from the foot, he may kick it as he can without running with it. In no other case may the ball be touched with the hands, except to stop it.
9. If the ball has passed a player, and has come from the direction of his own goal, he may not touch it till the other side have kicked it, unless there are more than three of the other side before him. No player is allowed to loiter between the ball and the adversaries' goal.
10. In no case is holding a player, pushing with the hands, or tripping up allowed. Any player may prevent another from getting to the ball by any means consistent with the above rule.
11. Every match shall be decided by a majority of goals.
(Signed,)
| H. SNOW, J. C. HARKNESS, | } | Eton. |
| J. HALES, E. SMITH, | } | Rugby. |
| G. PERRY, F. G. SYKES, | } | University. |
| W. H. STONE, W. J. HOPE-EDWARDES, | } | Harrow. |
| E. L. HORNE, H. M. LUCKOCK, | } | Shrewsbury. |
December 9th,

## Notes

* ↑ Curry, Graham; Dunning, Eric (2015). Assocation Football: A Study in Figurational Sociology. London: Routledge. pp. 63–69. ISBN 978-1-138-82851-3.
* ↑ The year is missing from the original source. The copy in Sykes (1897) has the year 1857 here, but Sykes's own account confirms 1856 as the correct year. (Wikisource contributor note)

## References

* "[Correspondence from Frederic G. Skyes]". The Eagle: a Magazine supported by Members of St. John's College (Cambridge: E Johnson) xix (cxiii): 586–588. June 1897.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1924, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 99 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Cambridge Rules

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Cambridge Rules."
* 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.
* Cambridge Rules (1856)
* Cambridge Rules (1863)
* Cambridge Rules (1867)
# Cambridge by lamplight; 9 woodcuts

CAMBRIDGE BY LAMPLIGHT
9 WOODCUTS
by
P. B. REDMAYNE
Cambridge
W. HEFFER & SONS LTD.
1921
King's College Chapel
Corpus Old Court
A Rainy Evening: Bridge Street Corner
Queens': The Cloister Court
St. John's: The Bridge of Sighs
Trinity: The Hall Entrance from Great Court
Jesus: The Gateway
Saturday Night in the Market
Printed by
W. Heffer & Sons Ltd.
Cambridge, England
# Cambuston v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 285
Cambuston v. United States
MOTION by the United States to dismiss an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of California.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The motion was submitted on printed arguments by the Solicitor-General for the United States, and by Mr. Edmond L. Goold for the appellant.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Beaumont v. Prieto

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 554
Beaumont v. Prieto
Argued: April 17, 1919. --- Decided: May 5, 1919
Messrs. Joseph D. Sullivan and Timothy Ansberry, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Alexander Britton and H. W. Van Dyke, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees and 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
# Beaumont Railway Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 74
Beaumont Railway Company v. United States
Argued: Oct. 20, 1930. --- Decided: Nov 24, 1930
[Syllabus from pages 74-76 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank H. Moore, of Kansas City, Mo., Samuel W. Moore, of New York City, W. E. Davis, of Kansas City, Mo., and M. G. Roberts, of St. Louis, Mo., for the southwestern lines.
The Attorney General and Messrs. Edward M. Reidy and Daniel W. Knowlton, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Frank H. Towner, of Chicago Ill., for the western trunk carriers.
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
# Beaupleader Act 1267

* related portals: Parliament of England.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Part of the Statute of Malborough
Statutes made at Marlborough, aliasMarleberge, 18 Novemb. Anno 52 HEN. III. andAnno Dom. 1267.
Beaupleader Act 1267
1267 (52 Hen. 3) C A P. XI.
IN the Year of Grace, One thousand two hundred sixty seven, the two and fiftieth Year of the Reign of King HENRY, Son of King JOHN, in the Utas of St. Martin, the said King our Lord providing for the better Estate of his Realm of England, and for the more speedy Ministration of Justice, as belongeth to the Office of a King, the more discreet Men of the Realm being called together, as well of the higher as of the lower Estate: It was provided, agreed, and ordained, that whereas the Realm of England of late had been disquieted with manifold Troubles and Dissensions; for Reformation whereof Statutes and Laws be right necessary, whereby the Peace and Tranquillity of the People*2 must be observed:Wherein the King, intending to devise convenient Remedy, hath made these Acts, Ordinances, and Statutes underwritten, which he willeth to be observed for ever firmly and inviolably of all his Subjects, as well high as low."
No Fines shall be taken for Beaupleader.
IT is provided also, That from henceforth neither in the Circuit of Justicers, nor in Counties, Hundreds, and Court Barons, any Fines shall be taken of any Man for Fair-Pleading, nor so that any Occasion shall be.
Enforced by 3 Ed. 1. c. 8. & 1 Ed. 3. stat. 2. c. 8. Regist. 179. 2 Inst. 122.
II. And it is to be known, that by this Act Fines certain, or Loans assessed since the time that our Lord the King first passed into Britain, are not taken away.
Note : this act is listed in the Chronological Table of Statutes as the Beaupleader Act, 1267
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
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Apostolic Expeditors

From volume 5 of the work.
(Lat. Expeditionarius literarum apostolicarum, Datariae Apostolicae sollicitator atque expeditor; It. Spedizionieri).
Officials who attend to the sending of Bulls, Briefs, and Rescripts, that emanate from the Apostolic Chancery, the Dataria, the Sacred Paenitentiaria, and the Secretariate of Briefs. In a restricted and specific sense expeditors or expeditioners are laymen approved by the Dataria, after an examination, to act as agents for bishops or others before the Dataria or Apostolic Chancery. They are members of the Roman Court. They differ from solicitors as well as from procurators or agents in general, who transact business with the Roman Congregations. A solicitor, strictly speaking, is an assistant to a procurator, doing the mechanical work of preparing documents. An expeditor is more concerned with matters of favour, privileges, dispensations and so on, than with cases in litigation. It has been the practice of the Dataria and Apostolic Chancery to carry on business only with authorized agents, or expeditors, whose office it is to draw up and sign the necessary documents, receive and forward the answer given. They receive a certain fixed fee for each transaction, while procurators and solicitors generally receive a monthly stipend. The number of expeditors has varied. Cardinal Pacca, pro-datarius, decided, in 1833, that the number, which was then one hundred, should be regulated by the amount of business to be transacted. In late years there were about thirty. In reorganizing the Roman Court, Pius X deprived these expeditors of their exclusive right to appear before the Dataria, and Apostolic Chancery.
ANDREW B. MEEHAN
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Apostolic Blessing

From volume 2 of the work.
The solemn blessing (urbi et orbi) which, before 1870, the Holy Father himself gave from the loggias of:
The popes very often delegated to others the power to give this blessing in answer to petitions from princes, at the close of missions, and on such occasions. This power was restricted by Clement XIII, 3 September, 1762, to patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops, who petition the Apostolic See for it; they can give the Apostolic blessing on Easter Sunday and on some other feasts. Prelates who have the use of the pontificalia and jurisdiction over a certain territory can give it only once a year. A certain formula is prescribed. The superiors of certain religious orders, especially the Franciscans, can give it twice a year in the churches of their own order; they must use a formula and ask permission of the ordinary (30 August, 1763). The faculty is occasionally granted to particular priests, regular or secular, to give the Apostolic blessing upon return from Rome, at the close of missions or retreats; in this case no solemn rite is required. The Apostolic blessing is a sacramental with which is grated a plenary indulgence (under the usual conditions), but no absolution from ecclesiastical censures. During a jubilee this blessing cannot be given. A special feature of this blessing is the Apostolic benediction in articulo mortis. This blessing is given to those who are in danger of death by priests who possess the required faculty. A formula is prescribed by Benedict XIV; to gain the indulgence it is necessary to receive the sacraments, to invoke the name of Jesus, and be resigned to the will of God. In missionary countries the bishops can subdelegate every priest to grant this indulgence (5 April, 1772). It is not suspended by a jubilee.
FREDERICK G. HOLWECK