OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Part 6/Superstitions respecting Hair

Part VI: Miscellaneous Superstitions & Observances.; Superstitions respecting Hair.
HAIR.
The folk-lore of hair contains several curious items. We are told that if a horse-hair be placed in a stream of running water it will soon become alive; but those who are only very slightly acquainted with natural history will be able to correct and also to explain the origin of this mistake. If a hair be placed on a schoolboy's hand, it is expected to split the cane with which the school-master is punishing him. When the splitting does not take place, the hair will so deaden the pain as to make it scarcely felt. Youths generally pluck hairs from the heads of their playmates on each return of their ​birthdays. They also pull the hair upwards at the back of the head, in order to ensure them a lucky and prosperous year. This is locally termed "randling." When a child is bitten by a dog, the bite is said to be effectually cured by binding a few hairs from the dog over the wound. As "like cures like," no hydrophobia can possibly result. During 1872 an assault case was heard before two of our county magistrates, which arose from the owner of a dog refusing to give some of its hairs to the mother of a child that had been bitten. Red-haired persons, we are told, do not soon turn grey; their passions are more intense than those whose hair is of a different colour; and they are not unfrequently reproached with having descended from the Scots and Danes. Red-haired children are supposed to indicate infidelity on the part of the mother; they are consequently looked upon as unlucky, and are not wanted in a neighbour's house on the morning of New Year's Day. Hair on the arms is considered to betoken coming riches; for "When hairy mich, you'll soon be rich;" and when the hair of the eyebrows meets over the bridge of the nose, it is taken as an indication that the person who possesses this peculiarity will certainly be hanged
# Lancaster Palatine Courts Act 1794

Source: The Statutes, Second Revised Edition: Volume 2. London. The Stationery Office. 1889.
AN ACT to prevent the Removal of Suits from the Inferior Courts in the County Palatine of Lancaster into the Court of Common Pleas of the said County Palatine.
WHEREAS great mischiefs have arisen from the facility of removing causes of small value from the inferior courts in the county palatine of Lancaster into the Court of Common Pleas of the said county palatine: For remedy whereof, be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this Act no execution shall be stayed or delayed upon or by any writ of false judgement or supersedeas thereon, to be sued for the reversing of any judgement given or to be given in any inferior court within the county palatine of Lancaster where the debt or damages are under ten pounds, unless such person or persons in whose name or names such writ of false judgement shall be brought, with two sufficient sureties, such as the court (wherein such judgement is or shall be given) shall allow of, shall first, before such stay made or supersedeas to be awarded, be bound unto the party for whom such judgement is or shall be given, by recognizance to be acknowledged in the same court, in double the sum adjudged to be recovered by the said former judgement, to prosecute the said writ of false judgement with effect, and also to satisfy and pay (if the said judgement be affirmed or the said writ of false judgement be not proceeded in) all and singular the debt, damages and costs adjudged, and all costs and damages to be awarded for the same delaying of execution.
AND no cause, where the cause of action shall not amount to the sum of ten pounds or upwards, shall be removed or removeable from any court of inferior jurisdiction into the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, by any writ of pone accedas ad curiam certiorari or otherwise, unless the defendant who shall be desirous of removing such cause shall enter into the like recognizance as aforesaid for payment of the debt or damages and costs, in case judgement shall pass against him, any law or statute to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.
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
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Part 6/Witchcraft Superstitions

Part VI: Miscellaneous Superstitions & Observances.; Witchcraft Superstitions.
WITCHCRAFT
Still keeps its hold on the minds of many of our peasants. They never doubt its reality, although their conceptions of its effects, and the powers of those who are supposed to practise the art, have undergone much modification since the time when witchcraft was made a capital crime. At present reputed witches are supposed to employ themselves much more in doing mischief than in "raising storms and causing great devastations both by sea and land." Witch feasts are now unknown; nor do "the old crones" now fly through the air on broomsticks; but they are supposed to be able to cause bad luck to those who offend them; to produce fatal diseases in those they desire to punish more severely; and to plague the farmers by afflicting their cattle, and rendering their produce almost unprofitable. Sickles, triple pieces of iron, and horse shoes, may still be found on the beams and behind the doors of stables and shippons; which are supposed to possess the power of destroying, or preventing, the effects of witchcraft; and self-holed stones, termed "lucky-stones," are still suspended over the backs of cows in order that they may be protected from every diabolical influence.
When cream is "bynged," and will produce no butter by any amount of churning, it is said to be bewitched, and a piece of red hot-iron is frequently put into the churn, in order that "the witch may be burnt out," and that butter may be produced. To prevent cream from being bynged, dairy-maids are taught to sing when churning—
"Come, butter, come;
Peter stands at t' yate,
Waiting for a butter cake;
Come, butter, come."
​When we see a fire on the top of a hill, we are sometimes assured that the flame is a witch-fire, and that the witches may be seen, from a distance, dancing round it at midnight. It is firmly believed that no witch, nor even any very ill-disposed person, can step over anything in the shape of a cross. Hence persons are advised to lay a broom across the doorway when any suspected person is coming in. If their suspicions are well-grounded, the witch will make some excuse and pass along the road. The power of a witch is supposed to be destroyed by sprinkling salt into the fire nine mornings in succession. The person who sprinkles the salt must be the one affected by the supposed witchcraft, and as the salt drops down must repeat, "Salt! salt! I put thee into the fire, and may the person who has bewitched me neither eat, drink, nor sleep, until the spell is broken." During 1871 a young man, resident near Manchester, suspected his own mother of having bewitched him, and the above spell was repeated in the presence of the magistrates before whom he was summoned, in consequence of his inhuman conduct to his mother. There is also a female resident near Burnley, who refuses to live with her husband, because she suspects him of having bewitched her on many occasions.
# Lancaster Bar

The Lancaster Bar is a periodical, published from 1869 to 1883.
* Volume 1 (1870) External scan
* Volume 2 External scan External scan
* Volume 3 External scan
* Volume 4 External scan
* Volume 5 External scan External scan
* Volume 6 External scan External scan
* Volume 7 (1878) External scan External scan
* Volume 8 (1878) External scan External scan
* Volume 9 (1878) (transcription project) External scan
* Volume 10 (1879) External scan External scan
* Volume 11 (1880) External scan
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
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Part 6/Superstitions respecting Fish and Bacon

Part VI: Miscellaneous Superstitions & Observances.; Superstitions respecting Fish and Bacon.
FISH AND BACON
Are included in the same category of superstitions, and various rules have been laid down for the guidance of family purveyors. Shell-fish are not considered to be wholesome in any month whose name does not contain the letter R. There is, however, one exception:—
"Cockles and ray, Come in in May."
Pigs are popularly said to be able "to see the wind," in consequence of their restlessness before and during stormy weather. We are advised never to kill domestic pigs during the waning of the moon; for then their flesh is unwholesome, and will not absorb the salt The following caution is also current throughout the county:—
"Unless your bacon you would mar, Kill not your pig without the R."
# Interocean Oil Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 65
Interocean Oil Company v. United States
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 12, 1926. --- Decided: March 1, 1926
Messrs. Charles E. Kern and John Paul Earnest, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Messrs. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., Alfred A. Wheat, and Randolph S.C.ollins, all of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance."
* 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.
* Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1962 (currently cited as Interpretation and General Clauses Act), an Ordinance enacted by the Gibraltar House of Assembly.
* Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1966 (currently cited as Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1)), an Ordinance enacted by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong.
* Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1977, an Ordinance enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Falkland Islands that has the same legislative function.
# Interpretation Act

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Interpretation Act."
* 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.
* Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21) (Canada)
* Interpretation Act, 1957 (Act 33 of 1957) (South Africa)
* Interpretation Act 1978 (1978 c. 30) (United Kingdom)
* Interpretation Act 1987 (No. 15 of 1987) (New South Wales)
* Interpretation Act 2005 (No. 23 of 2005) (Ireland)
Repealed enactments:
* Interpretation Act (1867-68, c. 1) (Canada): repealed by Schedule A to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886.
* Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1886, c. 1) (Canada): repealed by Schedule A to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.
* Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1906, c. 1) (Canada): repealed by Schedule A to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.
* Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1927, c. 1) (Canada): repealed by Schedule A to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952.
* Interpretation Act (R.S.C, 1952, c. 158) (Canada): repealed by subsection 42(1) of the Interpretation Act (1967-68 c. 7).
* Interpretation Act (1967-68, c. 7) (Canada): repealed by Schedule A to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.
* Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1970, c. I-23) (Canada): repealed by the Schedule to Appendix I to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, except subsection 22(1), words "before, on or after the 1st day of September 1967,".
* Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict c. 63) (United Kingdom): Repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978 (1978 c. 30), except some provisions applicable to Northern Ireland.
* Interpretation Act 1967 (A1967-48) (Australian Capital Territory): Repealed by the Legislation Amendment Act 2002 (A2002-11).
* Interpretation Act 1999 (1999 No. 85) (New Zealand): Repealed by the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2019, superseded by Part 2 of the Legislation Act 2019 (2019 No. 58).

## See also

* Acts Interpretation Act
* General Clauses Act
* Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance; Interpretation and General Clauses Act
* Legislation Act
* Title 1 of the United States Code
# Johnson v. McAdoo

Johnson v. McAdoo, 244 U.S. 643 (1917), was a class-action lawsuit filed in 1915 in US federal court seeking reparations for slavery in the amount of 68 million dollars, the amount of cotton tax that was collected between 1862 and 1868 on cotton and held by the U.S. Treasury Department. Since its collection in the 1860s, the tax money was held by the Treasury Department for next fifty years without distribution due to issues regarding the appropriateness of collecting the tax on cotton produced by slaves. Recognizing that the $68 million had no takers for the prior 50 years, the National Ex-Slave Mutual Relief, Bounty and Pension Association, an organization founded in 1896 by former slaves Callie House and Isaiah H. Dickerson as one of the first organizations to campaign for reparations for slavery in the United States, saw an opportunity for a court to give the government collected tax money to former slaves and their descendants in equity. The plaintiffs sought to have the court order the Treasury Department to perform the specific act of giving the $68 million to the plaintiff class made up of descendants of slaves and former slaves as being a fair resolution to the lawsuit. Lead plaintiff H. N. Johnson was a former slave. Defendant William G. McAdoo was the United States Secretary of the Treasury at the time the lawsuit was filed in 1915. Johnson v. McAdoo was the first documented chattel slavery reparations litigation in the US at the federal level. The lawsuit was unsuccessful and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the decision by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to denied the claim.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 643
H. N. Johnson et al. v. William G. McAdoo
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
No. 897 Argued: April 30, 1917. --- Decided: May 7, 1917.
[p643]
Mr. Cornelius J. Jones for appellants. Mr. Solicitor General Davis for appellee. Motion to affirm submitted April 30, 1917. Decided May 7, 1917.
Per Curium.
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
# Johnson v. McAdoo/Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 643
H. N. Johnson et al. v. William G. McAdoo
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Linked case(s):
* Court of Appeals opinion
Judgement affirmed ​ with costs upon the authority of Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10; International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601; United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218; Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U.S. 627.
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
# Johnson v. McAdoo (45 App. D.C. 440)

Johnson v. McAdoo, 45 App. D.C. 440 (1916), was a class-action lawsuit filed in 1915 in US federal court seeking reparations for slavery in the amount of 68 million dollars, the amount of cotton tax that was collected between 1862 and 1868 on cotton and held by the U.S. Treasury Department. Since its collection in the 1860s, the tax money was held by the Treasury Department for next fifty years without distribution due to issues regarding the appropriateness of collecting the tax on cotton produced by slaves. Recognizing that the $68 million had no takers for the prior 50 years, the National Ex-Slave Mutual Relief, Bounty and Pension Association, an organization founded in 1896 by former slaves Callie House and Isaiah H. Dickerson as one of the first organizations to campaign for reparations for slavery in the United States, saw an opportunity for a court to give the government collected tax money to former slaves and their descendants in equity. The plaintiffs sought to have the court order the Treasury Department to perform the specific act of giving the $68 million to the plaintiff class made up of descendants of slaves and former slaves as being a fair resolution to the lawsuit. Lead plaintiff H. N. Johnson was a former slave. Defendant William G. McAdoo was the United States Secretary of the Treasury at the time the lawsuit was filed in 1915. Johnson v. McAdoo was the first documented chattel slavery reparations litigation in the US at the federal level. The lawsuit was unsuccessful and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the decision by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to denied the claim.
* 45 App. D.C. 440 H. N. Johnson et al., Appellant
* v.
* William Gibbs McAdoo
* No. 2918
* United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
* Argued October 6, 1916
* Decided November 14, 1916
* Appeal allowed December 16, 1916 __________ OFFICERS; UNITED STATES AS A PARTY.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Linked cases: Brief of Appellants Brief for Appellee
A ​ bill in equity against the Secretary of the Treasury to establish an equitable lien upon a fund in his custody by virtue of his office, such as a fund derived from the sale of cotton seized by the United States during the Civil War, is not maintainable, as the read defendant is the United States, which cannot be sued without its consent.
No. 2918. Submitted October 6, 1916. Decided November 14, 1916.
Hearing on an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing an amended bill in equity to establish a lien upon a fund in the custody of the defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. J. Jones for the appellants. Mr. John E. Lasky, United States District Attorney, and Mr. M. C. Van Fleet, Special Assistant, for the appellee. Mr. Justice Robb delivered the opinion of the Court.
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
# Johnson v. McAdoo (45 App. D.C. 440)/Opinion of the Court

* 45 App. D.C. 440 H. N. Johnson et al., Appellant
* v.
* William Gibbs McAdoo
* No. 2918
* United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Linked cases: Brief of Appellants Brief for Appellee
​Mr. C. J. Jones for the appellants. Mr. John E. Lasky, United States District Attorney, and Mr. M. C. Van Fleet, Special Assistant, for the appellee.
Mr. Justice Robb delivered the opinion of the Court:
Appeal from a decree in the supreme court of the District sustaining appellee's motion to dismiss appellants' bill to have declared an equitable lien in $68,072,388.99 ($1.8 billion in 2022 dollars), which is alleged to be in the United States Treasury, under the custody of appellee, Wm. G. McAdoo, Secretary of Treasury.
In ​ their original bill, which they filed for themselves and others similarly interested, appellants, H. N. Johnson, C. B. Williams, Rebecca Bowers, and Minnie Thompson, alleged that within the years 1859 to 1868 they and their ancestors "were subject to a system of involuntary servitude" in states of the South, and that as a result of such servitude many million bales of cotton were produced; that between the years 1862 to 1868 the then Secretary of the Treasury secured possession of the above-named sum of money, "being a portion of the proceeds of the identical cotton heretofore mentioned, and that said money is designated on the books of the defendant, named on said books, and known as 'Internal Revenue Tax on Raw Cotton;' " in other words, that this amount was collected by the government of the United States under the provisions of "An Act to Provide Internal Revenue to Support the Government and Pay Interest on the Public Debt," approved July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. at L. 432, 462 to 465, chap. 119), and Acts in amendment thereof.
A motion to dismiss this bill having been granted, leave to amend was obtained. Thereupon an amended bill was filed, in which was omitted the averment as to the source of the above sum.
The bill, even as amended, clearly discloses that this large sum of money is not the property of appellee at all, but, on the contrary, that he is merely its custodian in virtue of his office. The real defendant, therefore, is the United States. Without pausing to point out other apparent weaknesses in the bill, we may ground our affirmance of the decree below upon the fact that the United States cannot be made a party to this suit without its consent. United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218, 58 L. ed. 191, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84; International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601, 48 L. ed. 1134, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 40 L. ed. 599, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443.
Decree affirmed, with costs.
Affirmed.
An appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was allowed December 16, 1916.
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
# Johnson v. Mississippi

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 212
Johnson v. Mississippi
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi
No. 5485. Argued: April 21, 1971 --- Decided: June 7, 1971
In a charge of criminal contempt against petitioner which arose from petitioner's alleged violation of courtroom procedure during an earlier criminal trial where it is not clear from the record that the judge was personally aware of the contemptuous action when it occurred, petitioner should be provided a fair hearing with an opportunity to show that the version of the event related to the judge was inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete. And where a motion that trial judge recuse himself was supported by lawyers' affidavits that the judge had revealed deep prejudice against civil rights workers, and the judge was a losing defendant in a civil rights suit brought by petitioner, he should have recused himself from trying the charge.
233 So. 2d 116, reversed and remanded.
Stephen W. Porter argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Richard B. Ruge.
G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was A.F. Summer, Attorney General.
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
# Johnson v. Muelberger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 581
Johnson v. Muelberger
Argued: Jan. 4, 1951. --- Decided: March 12, 1951
Mr. William E. Leahy, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Saul Hammer, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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