OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Part 6/Folklore of Children

Part VI: Miscellaneous Superstitions & Observances.; Folklore of Children.
CHILDREN
Are very numerous, and are constantly practised in our nurseries and cottages. Young children are often reminded that they ought not to walk backwards in a room, or on a road;—if they do, death will soon deprive them of their mothers. Many persons consider it sinful to give a child the same Christian name as another who is dead: one female remarked to the writer that "id wor gooin ageean God Omeety as hed ta'en't'other away." A child with two crowns, or two circular tufts of hair, will live in two kings' reigns. Very few nurses will convey a child down-stairs the first time it is removed from the room; they always carry it up a few steps, if possible, towards the attic, in order that it may hereafter rise in the world. For want of other means the nurse sometimes mounts a chair with the child in her arms. The belief in changelings is not yet extinct; especially amongst the lower Irish population.
A person now living in Burnley firmly believed that her withered, consumptive child was a changeling. She told the writer that it would not live long; and when it died, she said "the fairies had got their own." Our peasantry also hold that unbaptized children neither ​go to heaven nor to hell; but wander in an intermediate state, and become either fairies or pixies. Baptism is said to drive the devil out of children; and negligent mothers are frequently reminded that they become better tempered and have better health after they have been christened.
When an infant smiles in its sleep our nurses say that the angels are whispering to it; but when it starts up in terror, then some demon is tormenting it. Precocious children are seldom long-lived;—they are often reminded that they "are too fause [wise] to live." If children are weighed before they are a year old; or if their finger nails are cut, instead of being bitten off, during the same period, bad health and misfortune will follow. When children cut their teeth early, their mothers are supposed to be prolific; the old adage being—
"Soon ith goom [gum]; quick ith woom [womb]."
The good or ill fortune of children is the subject of several predictions. Female infants with small white hands are considered to be "born ladies." Their future success in life is frequently tested by means of tickling their knees, while the following words are being repeated:—
"If you're to be a lady,
As I expect to see;
You will neither laugh nor smile,
While I tickle on your knee."
Occasionally nurses may be detected tying three pieces of straw to the top of a stick. This is done in order to test the the disposition of a strange child; for it is said that—
"Three straws stuck on a staff
Will make a baby cry or laugh."
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Part 6/Observances as to Money

Part VI: Miscellaneous Superstitions & Observances.; Observances as to Money.
MONEY.
There are several curious aphorisms current in the county respecting money. When we obtain possession of a piece of gold, we are sometimes advised to rub it over both eyelids, and we shall, in consequence, soon see more. When a rainbow appears we must mark the spot where it touches the earth, and we shall there find a pot of gold by digging. Bad luck soon follows the finding of a sixpence, unless it happens to be crooked. This notion has passed into a proverb, since—
"A coin that's crook Brings more to t' rook [heap]."
​Many persons will not part with money that has moulded. The pieces are not only considered to be lucky, but have the property of attracting others to them. Young persons may occasionally be detected in the act of stirring a cup of tea, or other liquid, so as to cause it to rotate rapidly, and produce a circle of foam in the centre. The quantity of foam indicates the amount of money which will ultimately be bequeathed to the persons who thus try their fortunes.
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Part 5/Wigan Nursery Song

Part V: Popular Rhymes, Proverbs, Similes, &c; Wigan Nursery Song.
POPULAR LOVE-RHYME.
The following lines very forcibly express the condition of many a country milkmaid, when motherly influences, or other considerations, render her incapable of giving a final decision upon the claims of two rival suitors. The rhymes may be changed so as to suit other Christian names at pleasure:—
Heigh ho! my heart is low,
My mind runs all on one;
W stands for William true,
But J for my love John.
WIGAN NURSERY SONG.
Little John Jiggy Jag,
He rode a penny nag, And went to Wigan to woo-oo-oo.
When he came to a beck [brook],
He fell and broke his neck;
Johnny, now how dost thou do-oo-oo?
I made him a hat
Out of my coat-lap,
With stockings of pearly blue-ue-ue,
A hat and a feather,
To keep out the cold weather;
So Johnny, dear, how dost thou do-oo-oo?
WINWICK CHURCH RHYME.
The church at little Winwick,
It stands upon a sod;
And when a maid is married there,
The steeple gives a nod.
Alas! how many ages Their rapid flight have flown, Since on that high and lofty spire There's moved a single stone!
PRESCOT, HUYTON, AND CHILDWALL.
Prescot, Huyton, and merry Childow, Three parish churches all in a row: Prescot for mugs; Huyton for ploydes; Childow for ringing and singing besides.
[Ploydes—ploys—merry meetings; although some think "ploughs" are meant.]
# Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c./Part 6/Folklore of Birds

Part VI: Miscellaneous Superstitions & Observances.; Folklore of Birds.
BIRDS
Furnishes several curious superstitions. Popular opinion states that if we turn over any money which we may happen to have in our pockets, when we first hear the cuckoo in the spring, we shall thereby secure a prosperous year. Lovers are told that if they will take off their left shoe when the cuckoo is first heard, they will find a hair in it of the same colour as that of their respective future husbands or wives. Children greet them, on their first appearance, with
"Cuckoo! Cuckoo! cherry tree, Lay an egg and give it me."
They are popularly said to indicate length of life according to the number of times they shout out their only notes. Hence, they are addressed in the following terms, and their answers are considered ominous by those who put the questions:—
""Cuckoo! cuckoo! cherry tree, Pretty bird, come tell to me, How many years! Before you fly, How many years before I die?"
The Story of the "Babes in the Wood" appears to have ​done good service for the robin. Farmers and their servants are frequently told that if they kill a robin their cows will give blood instead of milk; and they are also said to cover dead bodies with leaves whenever they are suffered to lie out of doors unburied. Crows are said to bespatter persons with dung who have neglected to provide some new article of dress for Easter Sunday; and boys who are sent to scare them away from the crops imagine that they do it most effectually by screaming out—
"Crow! crow! fly away; Come again o' Setterday. Crow! crow! get out o' my seet, Or I'll eat thy liver to morn at neet."
The magpie augury assumes different forms in different counties. The following is prevalent in East Lancashire:—
"One for sorrow; two for mirth; Three for a wedding; four for a birth; Five for the rich; six for the poor; Seven for a bitch; eight for a ——; Nine for a burying; ten for a dance; Eleven for England; twelve for France."
# Larned v. Burlington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 275
Larned v. Burlington
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.
Mr. Grant, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Ewing, contra.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD 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
# Leedom v. International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 145
Leedom v. International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers
Argued: Nov. 14, 1956. --- Decided: Dec 10, 1956
Theophil C. Kammholz, Washington, D.C., for the petitioners.
Mr. Nathan Witt, 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
# Lee v. Watson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
68 U.S. 337
Lee v. Watson
It appears from the certificate of the presiding judge of the court below, indorsed on the writ of error, that the writ and original declaration in the case showed that the amount in controversy did not exceed one thousand dollars, and that the evidence offered by the plaintiffs at the trial showed that it did not exceed seven hundred dollars; and that in the progress of the cause an amendment was made in the amount of damages claimed, for the purpose of bringing the case within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. It is hardly necessary to add that upon the facts thus stated-and the correctness of the certificate is not questioned-the court will not entertain jurisdiction of the case.
To authorize a re-examination of a final judgment of the Circuit Court, the matter in dispute must, with some exceptions, exceed the sum or value of two thousand dollars. By matter in dispute is meant the subject of litigation-the matter for which the suit is brought-and upon which issue is joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and witnesses examined. In an action upon a money demand, where the general issue is pleaded, the matter in dispute is the debt claimed, and its amount, as stated in the body of the declaration, and not merely the damages alleged, or the prayer for judgment at its conclusion, must be considered in determining the question whether this court can take jurisdiction on a writ of error sued out by the plaintiff. It certainly would not be pretended that this court would hear a case where the plaintiff counted solely upon a promissory note of two hundred dollars, simply because he concluded his declaration with an averment that he had sustained damages from its non-payment of over two thousand, and prayed judgment for the latter sum. Reference must be had both to the debt claimed and to the damages alleged, or the prayer for judgment. The damages or prayer for judgment must be regarded, inasmuch as the plaintiff may seek a recovery for less than the sum to which he appears entitled by the allegations in the body of the declaration.
Taking in the present case the certificate of the judge below as correct, the amount in controversy-that is, the debt alleged in the original declaration-did not exceed one thousand dollars; the jurisdiction is not therefore acquired by this court from the amendment in the amount of the damages claimed. The writ of error is
DISMISSED.

## 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
# Leech v. Louisiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
214 U.S. 175
Leech v. Louisiana
Argued: April 15, 1909. --- Decided: May 17, 1909
Mr. George H. Terriberry for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 175-177 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walter Guion, J. R. Beckwith, and N. H. Nunez for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 177 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
# Leedom v. Kyne

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 184
Leedom v. Kyne
Argued: Oct. 23, 1958. --- Decided: Dec 15, 1958
Mr. Norton J. Come, New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Jonas Silver, New York City, for respondent pro hac vice by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice WHITTAKER 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
# Lee v. Watson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
68 U.S. 337
Lee v. Watson
LEE and Leavit brought assumpsit in the Circuit Court for the Kentucky District, against Watson, declaring on a promissory note for $610, with a count for $1000 money due for goods sold; $1000 money had and received; $1000 money due on account stated, &c. What damages exactly were claimed in the narr. as originally filed, did not clearly appear, but they were obviously less than $2000. Demurrer was put in to one part of the declaration and non assumpsit pleaded to the residue, and the court having sustained the demurrer, the record proceeded thus:
'On motion of the plaintiffs, and by consent of the defendants, leave is given plaintiffs to amend their declaration by striking out the amount of damages claimed in this cause, and insert $2100, which is done accordingly, and the declaration so amended.'
A jury having been summoned to try the issue raised by the plea of non assumpsit to the money counts, a verdict was found by them for the defendants; whereupon the plaintiff having taken a bill of exceptions on the trial, applied for and obtained a writ of error to this court, under that section of the Judiciary Act which provides that final judgments in a Circuit Court, when the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $2000, may be re-examined here; the judge, however, who had heard the case and who allowed the writ, making this indorsement upon it:
'It was not without hesitation that the bill of exceptions was allowed, and this writ of error is now sanctioned. The writ and original declaration showed that the amount in controversy did not exceed $1000; the evidence offered on the trial by the plaintiffs showed that it did not exceed $700; and if the increase of the damages by the amendment of the declaration was intended for the sole purpose of giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction, the question is whether it ought to be allowed such effect. I however concluded that the counsel may proceed, because in this mode the question will be most conveniently presented where it will be at once and finally determined.'
The question in this court now was whether the writ could be sustained; a matter which was argued by Messrs. Lee and Fisher for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Fendall contra.
Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

* See ante, Ryan v. Bindley, p. 67.
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
# Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England/Volume 3

LEECHDOMS, WORTCUNNING,
AND
STARCRAFT
OF
EARLY ENGLAND.
BEING
A COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS, FOR THE MOST PART NEVER BEFORE PRINTED,
ILLUSTRATING
THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN THIS COUNTRY BEFORE THE NORMAN CONQUEST.
COLLECTED AND EDITED
BY THE
REV. OSWALD COCKAYNE, M.A. CANTAB.
VOL. III.
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER.
1866.
Printed by Eyre and Spottiswoode, Her Majesty's Printers. For Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
CONTENTS.
Page
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
# Leech v. Louisiana/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
214 U.S. 175
Leech v. Louisiana
Argued: April 15, 1909. --- Decided: May 17, 1909
This is an information charging the plaintiff in error with piloting a foreign vessel from the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans, the port to which she was bound, he not being a duly qualified pilot under the laws of Louisiana. He was convicted after a trial, and the supreme court of the state pronounced the judgment correct. 119 La. 522, 44 So. 285. By demurrer, motion to quash, and motion in arrest of judgment, he raised the objection that the power of Louisiana was not exclusive, and that a license from the board of pilot commissioners for the harbor of Natchez, Mississippi, was a sufficient authority under the act of Congress of March 2, 1837, chap. 22, 5 Stat. at L. 153, Rev. Stat. § 4236, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 2903.
The Mississippi river, it will be remembered, is a boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana from below the port of Natchez as far north as Louisiana extends. On the other hand, all the southernmost portion of the river is wholly within Louisiana. The destination of the vessel which the plaintiff in error undertook to pilot was to a point within this southernmost portion,-New Orleans,-as the information charged. For the purposes of decision it may be assumed, although it is disputed, that the state of Mississippi has attempted to authorize the plaintiff in error to do what he did, while Louisiana has made his conduct criminal if it has power to do so under the United States law.
The section of the Revised Statutes reads as follows: 'The master of any vessel coming into or going out of any port situate upon waters which are the boundary between two states may employ any pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of either of the states bounded on such waters, to pilot the vessels to or from such port.'
The case for the plaintiff in error depends upon the assumption that the 'waters which are the boundary between two states' are, in this case, the whole Mississippi river so far as navigable. We are of opinion that the assumption is wrong, and that the limit of the waters referred to is the point at which they cease to be a boundary between two states. Neither continuity of water nor identity of name will carry them beyond that point. If the plaintiff in error had undertaken to pilot from the Gulf to Natchez, a different question would have been presented, and it may be that in that case the Mississippi license would have been good. But New Orleans, although upon the Mississippi, is not situate upon waters which are the boundary between two states, and therefore the section relied upon does not apply. That being out of the way, Louisiana had power to pass her local regulations. Rev. Stat. § 4235, act of August 7, 1789, chap. 9, § 4, 1 Stat. at L. 54, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 2903.
Judgment 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
# Kessler v. Treat

United States Supreme Court
205 U.S. 33
Kessler v. Treat
Argued: December 3, 4, 1906. --- Decided: March 4, 1907
Messrs. John S. Miller, John J. Vertrees, Henry A. M. Smith, and James C. Bradford for appellants.
Mr. James P. Helm for appellant in No. 375.
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds and Solicitor General Hoyt for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller:
The same decrees will be entered in each of these cases as in the foregoing.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissented.

## 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
# Ketcham v. Burr/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 510
Ketcham v. Burr
Argued: Jan. 2, 1918. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1918
Having heard the cause upon bill, answer and replication, the District Court dismissed the bill. In support of this direct appeal it is said that the construction or application of the federal Constitution is involved. Judicial Code, § 238.
The defendants are the corporation which owns and operates Oak Grove asylum in Genesee county, Michigan; the medical director and chief guard of that institution; the present and a former judge, and also the present and a former register of the probate court of Genesee county; two examining physicians who upon an inquest held before that court certified complainant's insanity; and the attorney who represented the petitioner therein.
The bill is a nebulous recital of grievances against defendants and many others-all alleged to have been wicked conspirators seeking to deprive appellant of his liberty and money. It appears that the appellant, a citizen of Indiana, having effected his escape from an insane asylum in Wisconsin was taken by his family and friends to Oak Grove for medical care and treatment in May, 1906; and that directly thereafter a petition asking an inquisition concerning his sanity was duly presented to the probate court by the superintendent of that institution as provided by a state statute. After a hearing he was adjudged insane and committed for treatment; the right to appeal was not exercised. In October, 1906, he escaped, and this bill was filed May 11, 1912 without prior application for relief to any court of the state. It prays (1) that defendants be required to give an account of and restore to complainant all writings, letters, documents and papers placed in their hands in connection with the inquisition, and (2) that the judge and register of the probate court be required to set aside and hold for naught the pretended inquisition in insanity and make adequate entry accordingly on the record.
All equities of the bill are fully denied in the answer; and the claim that the cause really involves construction or application of the federal Constitution is without foundation.
We have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and it must be
Dismissed.

## 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
# Kessler v. Strecker

United States Supreme Court
307 U.S. 22
Kessler v. Strecker
Argued: Feb. 10-13, 1939. --- Decided: April 17, 1939
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., and Frank Murphy, Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Messrs. Whitney North Seymour, of New York City, and C. Altheus Stanfield, of Hot Springs, Ark., 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
# Ketcham v. Burr

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 510
Ketcham v. Burr
Argued: Jan. 2, 1918. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1918
Mr. William D. Williams, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. John J. Carton, of Flint, Mich., for appellees.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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