OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Volunteering in India/Preface

Layout 2
PREFACE.
In the following narrative an attempt has been made to relate the military services of the Bengal Yeomanry Cavalry during the Indian Mutiny, and Sepoy War; and as truth lies in a small compass, so this little volume contains no fiction, nor will any conjectural narration be found in its compressed chapters of unembellished facts.
Parenthetically, it may be recorded in this place that, as the Bengal Yeomanry Cavalry was the parent, or pioneer Corps, of the great Patriotic Force now established and consolidated in England, it is entitled to claim the proud distiniction of having undeniably originated the modern Volunteer movement throughout the British Empire, and this narrative will tend to show that the Corps was worthy of that proud position.
Although more than thirty years have elapsed since the "transitory regiment" passed away with the shifting tide of events, the subjoined narrative is the legitimate offspring of my manuscript journal, kept with diligence and care at the time when the various movements, scenes, and actions it describes occurred.
Nevertheless, the mere fact of my having kept this ​journal as a sealed book up to the present day, conclusively proves that I never Intended to publish its contents, nor did I anticipate ever being asked by the gallant survivors (there are, alas! few now left) of my late fellow-volunteers to allow it to be published. They, however, see that a Volunteer Age has dawned upon the world since the eventful year 1857; and lest in the gigantic strides of the general movement the eminent services they rendered to their country in the darkest days of the Mutiny fade into oblivion, and be lost to them altogether, they naturally seek a descriptive record — an authoritative biography, as it were — to perpetuate the military operations in which they were engaged. I have accordingly traced an unassuming sketch of those familiar operations; and my readers must never lose sight of the fact that the Government Gazetted records — which are quoted in this plain, unvarnished narrative — substantiate, in every detail, the veracity of every paragraph I have written. And as regards all that concerns the rough composition of my pages, I have to ask some forbearance, for they but reflect, as in a glass, the contents of a journal penned not merely in the days of my youth, but also amid the interminable stir of a Mutiny never likely to be forgotten by those who bore the first shock of it, and passed through its fearful horrors.
London, 1893.
# Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 503
Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Company
Argued: December 13 and 14, 1916. --- Decided: January 15, 1917
Assistant Attorney General Wallace for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 504-506 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John R. Van Derlip, Burt F. Lum, and Kenneth Taylor for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 507-511 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Uterhart v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 598
Uterhart v. United States
Argued: January 24, 1916. --- Decided: April 3, 1916
Messrs. H. T. Newcomb and Morris F. Frey for appellants.
Assistant Attorney General Wallace and Mr. William C. Herron for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 599-600 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# Wallace's Invocation to Bruce

PRIZE POEM.
WALLACE'S INVOCATION TO BRUCE.
A Poem.
BY MRS HEMANS,
AUTHOR OF "THE RESTORATION OF THE WORKS OF ART TO ITALY," "MODERN GREECE," "TALES AND HISTORIC SCENES," AND OTHER POEMS.
"Great patriot hero! Ill requited chief!" Thomson.
EDINBURGH;
PRINTED FOR WILLIAM BLACKWOOD: AND T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, IN THE STRAND, LONDON. MDCCCXIX.
ADVERTISEMENT.
"A Native of Edinburgh, and Member of the Highland Society of London," with a view to give popularity to the project of rearing a suitable National Monument to the Memory of Wallace, lately offered Prizes for the three best poems on the subject of—that Illustrious Patriot inviting Bruce to the Scottish Throne. The following Poem obtained the first of these prizes. It would have appeared in the same form in which it is now offered to the Public, under the direction of its proper Editor, the giver of the Prize: but his privilege has, with pride as well as pleasure, been yielded to a Lady of the Author's own Country, who solicited permission to avail herself of this opportunity of honouring and farther remunerating the genius of the Poet; and, at the same time, expressing her admiration of the theme in which she has triumphed.
It is a noble feature in the character of a generous and enlightened people, that, in England, the memory of the patriots and martyrs of Scotland has long excited an interest not exceeded in strength by that which prevails in the country which boasts their birth, their deeds, and their sufferings.
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
# Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 407
Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Company
Argued: May 4 and 7, 1917. --- Decided: June 4, 1917
Messrs. Francis P. Garland and Asa P. French for appellants.
Messrs. L. O. Evans and John A. Garver for appellees.
Mr. Justice Clarke 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
# Wall v. Cox

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
181 U.S. 244
Wall v. Cox
Argued: April 15, 1901. --- Decided: April 29, 1901
Messrs. Clement Manly and Watson, Buxton, & Watson for appellants.
Messrs. Louis M. Swink and Lindsay Patterson for appellee.
Mr. Justice Gray 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
# Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 248
Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
Argued: Nov. 15, 16, 1944. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1944
See 324 U.S. 885, 65 S.Ct. 682 Mr. R. Walston Chubb, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner Wallace corporation.
Mr. M. E. Boiarsky, of Charleston, W. Va., for petitioner Richwood Clothespin and Dish Workers' Union.
Mr. Alvin J. Rockwell, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Wallace v. Adams

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
204 U.S. 415
Wallace v. Adams
Argued: December 21, 1906. --- Decided: February 25, 1907
Messrs. A. C. Cruce, Jackson H. Ralston, Frederick L. Siddons, William E. Richardson, W. I. Cruce, and W. R. Bleakmore for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 415-417 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George A. Mansfield, J. F. McMurray, and Melven Cornish (by special leave) for Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations.
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
# United States v. Brown (333 U.S. 18)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 18
United States v. Brown (333 U.S. 18)
Argued: Jan. 5, 6, 1948. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1948
Mr. Robert W. Ginnane, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Elmo B. Hunter, of Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE 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
# United States v. Brown (348 U.S. 110)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 110
United States v. Brown (348 U.S. 110)
Argued: Nov. 15, 1954. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1954
Mr.Samuel D. Slade, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Lee S. Kreindler, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# United States v. Brown (381 U.S. 437)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 437
United States v. Brown (381 U.S. 437)
Argued: March 29, 1965. --- Decided: June 7, 1965
Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for petitioner.
Richard Gladstein, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Brown."
* 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.
* United States v. Brown (206 U.S. 240)
* United States v. Brown (333 U.S. 18)
* United States v. Brown (348 U.S. 110)
* United States v. Brown (381 U.S. 437)
See also Brown v. United States.
# United States v. Brown (348 U.S. 110)/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 110
United States v. Brown (348 U.S. 110)
Argued: Nov. 15, 1954. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1954
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice REED and Mr. Justice MINTON join, dissenting.
In Brooks v. United States, 337 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 918, 93 L.Ed. 1200, we held that actions for damages could be brought against the Government for injuries to one soldier and the death of another due to negligent operation of an army truck. But we pointed out that the accident there had nothing to do with the 'army careers' of the soldiers and was neither caused by nor incident to their military service. When injured the two soldiers were off duty and were riding along a state highway in their own car on their own business which bore no relationship of any kind to any past, present or future connection with the army. Thus, the two soldiers would have been injured had they never worn a uniform at all. In this case, however, the injury is inseparably related to military service and the Brooks case should not be held controlling. But for his army service this veteran could not have been injured in the veterans hospital as he was eligible and admitted for treatment there solely because of war service which gave him veteran status. Moreover, he was actually being treated for an army service injury.
For a hospital injury a veteran is entitled to precisely the same disability benefits as if the injury had been inflicted while he was a soldier. We have previously held, I think correctly, that a soldier injured in a hospital cannot also sue for damages under the Tort Claims Act. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152. But the Court now holds that a veteran can. To permit a veteran to recover damages from the Government in circumstances under which a soldier on active duty cannot recover seems like an unjustifiable discrimination which the Act does not require.

## 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
# United States v. Brown (206 U.S. 240)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
206 U.S. 240
United States v. Brown
Argued: April 25, 1907. --- Decided: May 13, 1907
Assistant Attorney General Van Orsdel and Messrs. George B. Davis and Franklyn W. Collins for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 241 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Lorenzo A. Bailey, W. W. Dudley, and L. T. Michener for Brown.
[Argument of Counsel from page 242 intentionally omitted]
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
# Walker v. Whitehead

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
83 U.S. 314
Walker v. Whitehead
IN error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia.
Mr. P. Phillips, for the plaintiff in error; no opposing counsel.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and 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
# Walking Down Canal Street

Walking down Canal Street, Knocking at every door -- God-damn-son-of-a-bitch! I couldn't find a whore...
Finally found a whore -- She was tall and thin. God-damn-son-of-a-bitch! I couldn't get it in...
I finally got it in, And wriggled it all about... God-damn-son-of-a-bitch! I couldn't get it out!
Finally got it out -- It was red and sore... God-damn-son-of-a-bitch! Should never'a screwed a whore!

## References

Randolf, Vance and G. Legman (editor). Roll Me In Your Arms. "Walking Down Canal Street" on pg. 561
# Walker v. Villavaso/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 124
Walker v. Villavaso
The suit in the District Court for the parish of St. Bernard was an ordinary one for seizure and sale under a mortgage according to the practice prevailing in the courts of Louisiana. Indeed, this is hardly denied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error, but he relies on some infirmity in the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determin the case; and refers in support of it to certain insurgent proceedings in the State of Louisiana, against the then existing government, and to acts of Congress on the subject. But this question as to the competency of the court was not made on the trial, nor did the court below consider or determine any such question.
In order to give this court jurisdiction under the twenty-fifth section, it must appear on the record itself to be one of the cases enumerated in that section, and nothing out of the record certified to the court can be taken into consideration; and when the proceeding is according to the law of Lousiana, the case within the section must appear by the statement of facts and decision, as usually made in such cases by the court. No such case or question appears on the present record.
WRIT DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ Armstrong v. Treasurer, 16 Peters 285.
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
# Walker v. Wainwright

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 335
Walker v. Wainwright, Corrections Director
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 786, Misc. Argued: N/A --- Decided: March 11, 1968
Petitioner, under life sentence for murder, was later sentenced to five years for assault, to commence when he had completed the murder sentence. Petitioner challenged the murder conviction on constitutional grounds, but the District Court denied a writ of habeas corpus on the sole ground that, in view of the sentence for assault, a favorable decision would not result in the petitioner's immediate release from prison, and that the court was therefore powerless to consider his crimes. The Court of Appeals rejected his application for a certificate of probable cause.
Held: Whatever its other functions, the writ of habeas corpus is available to test the legality of a prisoner's current detention, and it is immaterial that another prison term might await him if he should establish the unconstitutionality of his present imprisonment.
Certiorari granted; reversed and remanded.
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
# Walker v. United States (71 U.S. 163)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 163
Walker v. United States
By the terms of the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act the jurisdiction of this court to re-examine the judgments of the Circuit Court, is limited to cases where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars.
It has been a good deal controverted whether sum or value in controversy is to be determined by reference to the amount claimed or the amount of the judgment, or the amount in dispute in this court. It has been long settled, however, that when the judgment is for the defendant or for the plaintiff, and for less than two thousand dollars, and the plaintiff sues out the writ of error, this court has jurisdiction if the damages claimed in the declaration exceed that sum; but that if the judgment is for plaintiff and not more than two thousand dollars, and the defendant prosecutes in error, this court has not jurisdiction, for the amount in controversy, as to the defendant, is fixed by the judgment. In determining the jurisdictional sum or amount it is obvious that neither interest on the judgment nor costs of suit can enter into the computation, for costs form no part of the matter in dispute, and interest on the judgment can only arise after rendition, while the jurisdictional amount, if determined by the judgment, is fixed at rendition. And this was settled in Knapp v. Banks. In that case some expressions in the opinion and in the order seem to support the idea that if the amount of the matter in controversy is precisely two thousand dollars a writ of error will lie. But the attention of the court was not directed to such a case, and we are not aware that such a case until now was ever before the court. But there is nothing doubtful in the rules applicable to it. This court has no appellate jurisdiction, except such as is defined by Congress. The act of Congress limits this jurisdiction to cases where the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars. We can no more take jurisdiction where the matter does not exceed than we can where it is less than that sum. The amount in controversy in the case before us, ascertained in conformity with the settled principles of the court, does not exceed two thousand dollars. We have, therefore, no jurisdiction of the writ of error, and it must be
DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ Cooke v. Woodruff, 5 Cranch, 13; Wise v. Columbian Turnpike Co., 7 Id. 276; Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Peters, 33; Smith v. Honey, Id. 469.
* ↑ 2 Howard, 73.
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
# Welsh Melodies/Caswallon's Triumph

15
CASWALLON'S TRIUMPH.
[Caswallon (or Cassivelaunus) was elected to the supreme command of the Britons, (as recorded in the Triads,) for the purpose of opposing Cæsar, under the title of Elected Chief of Battle. Whatever impression the disciplined legions of Rome might have made on the Britons in the first instance, the subsequent departure of Cæsar they considered as a cause of triumph; and it is stated that Caswallon proclaimed an assembly of the various states of the island, for the purpose of celebrating that event by feasting and public rejoicing.—Cambrian Biography.]
From the glowing southern regions,  Where the sun-god makes his dwelling, Came the Roman's crested legions  O'er the deep, round Britain swelling. The wave grew dazzling as he pass'd, With light from spear and helmet cast; And sounds in every rushing blast  Of a conqueror's march were telling.
But his eagle's royal pinion,  Bowing earth beneath its glory, Could not shadow with dominion  Our wild seas and mountains hoary! Back from their cloudy realm it flies, To float in light through softer skies; Oh! chainless winds of heaven arise! Bear a vanquish'd world the story!
Lords of earth! to Rome returning,  Tell how Britain combat wages, How Caswallon's soul is burning  When the storm of battle rages! And ye that shrine high deeds in song, O holy and immortal throng! The brightness of his name prolong,  As a torch to stream through ages!
# Welsh Melodies/Druid Chorus, on the Landing of the Romans

4
DRUID CHORUS ON THE LANDING OF THE ROMANS.
By the dread and viewless powers  Whom the storms and seas obey, From the Dark Isle’s$^3$ mystic bowers,  Romans! o'er the deep away! Think ye, 'tis but nature's gloom  O'er our shadowy coast which broods? By the altar and the tomb,  Shun these haunted solitudes!
Know ye Mona's awful spells?  She the rolling orbs can stay! She the mighty grave compels  Back to yield its fetter'd prey! Fear ye not the lightning stroke?  Mark ye not the fiery sky? Hence!—around our central oak  Gods are gathering—Romans, fly!