OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# SPODAM
#### l.

NEW YORK, 187, batul 18id. Söle Schleyer in Konstanz:
O söl löfik !
Vipöl vedön bonedel Volapükableda Zenodik, sedob ole in pened at tlati plo maks tel e fenigs mäls, suämi boneda yelsik, e begob das opotol bledi al ladet pepenöl diso.
            Dünan olik divodikün,
               John Smith,
                  365 Fifth Avenue.

#### 2.

CHICAGO, 1887, mälul 20id. Söles Müller und Schultze in Berlin :
O söls pelestimöl !
Pened at polovegivom oles fa flen obsik e bonedel söl Adolphus Snodgrass kel ovisitom Yulop kodü saun e keli kanobs komedön as man pekulivik e digik lotada keli klödobs das olofols ome.
Brown & Jones.
<a NAME="p062"></a>3.
PARIS, telul 15id, 1887.
Sˆles Sotoff e Ko., spulals,
Sˆls :
Penunob fa S. Alexandroff, spodel olsik in zif at, das nedols konodeli sevˆl, pl‰ j‰fs patik tedadoma olsik, magavi e volap¸ki.
Labedob sevis pevipˆl e sikodo d‰lob obe lofˆn oles d¸nis obik plo c‰l vagik.
Ss. Gaudin e Langlois in zif obsik l‰ kels binob pec‰lˆl, sis yels mˆdumik, okanoms givˆn oles n¸nis valik kelis odesidols tef¸ ob. Lem‰no fˆsefob olis das osteifob melidˆn konfidi keli ugivols obe.
Valadˆl gep¸ki gˆnik olsik, blibob.
               D. O.
                  GuÈrin.

#### 4.

[Blufapened xama al getˆn dipedi as Spodal Volap¸kik de Volap¸kaklub Flentik, 1887.]
PARIS, lulul 22id, 1887.
Sˆle Nicolescu in Jassi:
Potob ole atoso c‰napenedis tel sukˆl :
| | Fr. | 5000, | m‰lul balid su Stihi e Ko. |
| | --- | 2500, | velul balselulid su Vladescu |
| Suam : | Fr. | 7500, | su zif olik. |
Noelolˆs geti omas e kadolˆs omis klˆdat¸ kal obik. Falo pel panevilom, begob oli plotetˆn te c‰napenedi su Vladescu.
Nunob oli otüpo das ecänapenedob adelo su ol :
Fr. 6000 büdü Diamandi mul bal sis dät.
Noetolös cänapenedi obik e lasumolös omi gudiko.
                     Fould.

#### <a NAME="p063"></a>5.

BOSTON, 1887, babul l5id.
Labobs stimi nunön oles das eleblimobs in zif at fablüdi sobas, labül fiami, JAMES ROBINSON AND COMPANY. Begobs olis noetön disopenädis kopanalas e bestimön obis lesuno ko boneds olik, kelas pömetobs befulami kuladik.
               Peter Wilkins.

#### 6.

[Blufapened xamas flentik, 1886.]
ODESSA, kilul 6id, I886.
Söles Lacour e Burdel, vinatedals,
Sedolsös obe dub medam Sölas Charlier e Ko., sedans in zif olsik, segun stips kösömik tedadoma olsik, sotis difik de vins e ligs kels sukoms :
| Saint Julien, yel 1878, . . . | . . . . | flads | 300. |
| Graves, vietik, yel 1855. . | . . . . | otos | l50. |
| Vve. Cliquot, . . . . . . . . . | flads | lafik | 200. |
| Chartreuse, liköf balid, . . | . . . . | liäts | 50. |
Abinoböv vemo kotenik if äkanob-la getön bonedi obik büfü fin mula at.
Besäkolsös Söli Melnikoff in Marseilles, flen e kolänan obik, dö klödat keli tedadom obik melidom; söl at egivom obe völadalisedi olsik e ekomedom levemo vinis olsik.
Spelöl das sek jäfa at balid okodom suno bonedamis nulik, blibob
# THE USE OF CONJUNCTIONS AND ADVERBS

Since many English words are used both as conjunctions and as adverbs, we group together the principal difficulties of both these parts of speech.
But, as a preposition, has been explained. But, as a conjunction, is ab or sod. Sod is only used after a negativ ; it is not this, but (on the contrary) that. Even in this case ab may be used. "Not only --- but also ---," is expressed by ,,noe --- soi."
And, e before vowels ed is used, though not by all writers. For "both --- and ---" ,,ä --- ä ---" is used.
As, like in the same manner as, äs; as, in the capacity of, as. The verb is generally omitted in the latter case. As, since, for the reason that, bi.
Before, as a preposition, has been explained. Before, as a conjunction, is büfo ; look before you leap; before as an adverb of time, büfumo ; you said that before.
That, as a pronoun, at; atos. That, as a conjunction, has two meanings expressed by dat and das. Dat means, in order that, for the purpose that. Das merely introduces a subordinate sentence as a member of a principal one, as, I said
that he would come. The subordinate sentence "he would come" introduced by that, is the object ; that shows it to be subordinate.
Though, conjunction, or although, do. Though, adverb, nevertheless, deno.
Also, i, or id before vowels.
Nor, ni. "Neither --- nor ---," ,,ni --- ni ---."
If, provided, if. If, whether, va.
Even if, ifi.
Until, till, conjunction, jüs as a preposition, jü al, jü in, etc.
After, conjunction, na preposition, pos adverb, poso.
Or, u, or ud before vowels. "Either --- or ---," ,,uf --- ud ---."
When, conjunction, ven, kü, kelüp when ? kiüp ? kitim ? when, whereupon, e täno.
Where, conjunction, kö, kelöp where ? kiöp ? kiplad ?
Yet, referring to time, nog yet, nevertheless, yed.
There, when unemphatic, is frequently untranslatable, as in the phrases, there is, there are. There is, there are, have quite a different meaning, there being taking in the sense of yonder.
<A NAME="p037"></A>
# IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS

In English there are certain peculiarities of expression, which we do not notice until our attention is called to them by the study of other languages. It is therefore dangerous to translate literally into Volapük unless we first reflect upon the English phrase and are sure that it means literally and exactly what it says. It is safest, in regard to Volapük, as well as other languages, to frame sentences on the model of those which have been composed by authors of known correctness.
* In the earlier editions of the grammar oz was given as a
permissible plural of os.
Correspondents of different nationalities may be of mutual assistance in pointing out phrases which are difficult to understand, and requesting a repetition of the idea in different words. This alteration will itself be a valuable exercise. The various Volapük periodicals give from time to time notices of societies in various cities and towns of Europe. By writing to the president of one of these societies a correspondent may be secured, probably interested in the same pursuits as the applicant.
A few cautions as to idiomatic expressions are given below :
1. The distinction between the verbs "have, be, do," etc., when used as principal verbs and as auxiliaries, must be carefully watched.
2. In such phrases as "there is, there are," there, as already stated, is untranslatable. Yet it has a value; it shows that the verb to be has its meaning to exist, and that it is not a mere copula. For example :
There is a Volapük society in Constance ;
The Volapük Society in Constance is famous.
Is in the latter sentence is a copula, attributing the quality famous to the Society ; in the former sentence the affirmation is that such a society exists. It is allowed by usage in Volapük to mark this distinction by placing the verb before the subject, as,
1. Binom Volapükaklub in Konstanz, or
2. Volapükaklub in Konstanz binom famik.
3. Besides the articles a, an, the, we use the words some and any as a kind of partitiv articles, and these are also omitted in Volapük, as they add nothing to the sense.
| Have you any money ? | } | Li-labol moni ? |
| or, have you | | |
| I have some money, | } | Labob moni. |
| or I have money. | | |
In the negativ we use no or not any.
| | | No labob moni, |
| I have no money, | { | or |
| | | Labob moni nonik. |
# Hennessy v. Sheldon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
79 U.S. 440
Hennessy v. Sheldon
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana.
Madame Dreville filed her petition in the court below against one Walker, in which she alleged that he, Walker, was indebted to her in the sum of $5492, and she showed how this debt originated; how the note on which it was founded came into her possession; how much of it has been paid, and how much remained due. She further set forth that a mortgage was given by him on certain real estate, which she described, to secure the payment of the note, and she filed as exhibits, with her petition, copies of the note and the credits indorsed on it, and of the mortgage with its acknowledgment and certificate of its record.
She prayed that Walker might be cited to appear before the court, and that after legal proceedings had, be condemned to pay the sum which she claimed with interest and costs and five per cent. lawyers' fees, as stipulated in the mortgage; and that the plantation mentioned in the mortgage be adjudged and decreed to be subject to the payment of said debt, interests, and costs. Then followed a separate prayer for general relief.
There was for answer, first a short general denial of all the allegations of the petition; and afterwards a long supplemental answer, as it was called, in the nature of a cross-bill, setting up usury, and a cross demand, which was called by the court 'a reconvention.' This latter pleading was by order of the court, afterwards stricken out, apparently on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. This, however, was done after a distinct hearing on that subject.
The final judgment or decree of the court was:
'That plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum claimed, with interest, costs, and lawyers' fees; with privilege and mortgage on the property described in the notarial act, passed before Ad. Mazurean, notary, a certified copy of which is made part hereof.'
Walker brought the case here on error.
The question considered by the court was, whether the case was properly brought here by that means, and whether it should not have come by appeal?
Mr. T. J. Durant, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Miles Taylor, contra:
Mr. Justice MILLER, having stated the case in the way above given, 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
# Henrietta Hoffeld v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
186 U.S. 273
J. HENRIETTA HOFFELD, Executrix of Rudolph Hoffeld, Deceased, Appt., v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: April 16, 1902. --- Decided: June 2, 1902
This was a petition of J. Henrietta Hoffeld, executrix of the estate of Rudolph Hoffeld, deceased, for the repayment to her 1t27 the United States, under the act of June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. at L. 287, chap. 244), of the purchase money for 160 acres of coal lands, the entry of which had been canceled by the Commissioner of the General Land Office on January 27, 1895, over eight years after the purchase was made, and more than seven years after Hoffeld had bought the land.
The purchase from the United States was originally made by other parties for a consideration of $3,200. These parties had conveyed the lands to the Ohio Creek Anthracite Coal Company, against which company a judgment had been obtained, and a sale made November 10, 1887, to Rudolph Hoffeld, purchaser under the execution. Petitioner was his executrix. Several years after the sale the Commissioner of the General Land Office found that an error had been committed, in the allowance of the original entry upon the affidavit of an attorney, in the absence of the original entrymen. He thereupon exacted an affidavit of these entrymen, but as two out of the four were dead, and the other two could not be found, it was impossible to comply with the requirement of the Commissioner, who canceled the purchase, as above stated.
The court of claims made a finding of facts substantially as above stated, and decided, as a conclusion of law upon such facts, that the claimant had no right to recover, and the petition was therefore dismissed.
Mr. Robert Andrews for appellant.
Mr. George Hines Gorman and Assistant Attorney General Pradt for appellee.
Mr. Justice Brown 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
# Hennessy v. Sheldon/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
79 U.S. 440
Hennessy v. Sheldon
The pleading, the orders, and the decree of the court, show, we think, so as to need no further argument to a mind familiar with the principles of equity jurisprudence, that the procedure is in its essential nature a foreclosure of a mortgage in chancery. It has all the essential qualities of such a suit, and it has none which is not usual and appropriate in such a proceeding. It is true that there is a personal judgment against defendant, but the ninety-second rule of equity practice prescribed by this court clearly authorizes such a judgment in forclosure cases. It is the precise mode of foreclosing mortgages adopted in many of the States under their codes, and in all of them, when there is a separate chancery docket, such proceedings are classed among the chancery causes.
We have so often decided that notwithstanding the peculiarities of the Civil Code of Louisiana, the distinctions between law and equity must be preserved in the Federal courts, and that equity causes from that circuit must come here by appeal, and common law causes by writ of error, that we cannot now depart from that rule without overruling numerous decisions and a well-settled course of practice.
The present case being a proceeding in equity brought here by writ of error, and not by appeal, the writ must be
DISMISSED.
SWAYNE and BRADLEY, JJ, 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
# Henrietta First Moon v. Starling White Tail

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 243
Henrietta First Moon v. Starling White Tail
Argued: Jan. 29, 1926. --- Decided: March 1, 1926
Messrs. L. A. Maris, of Ponca City, Okl., and E. Barrett
Prettyman, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Harry L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C., 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
# Hennington v. Georgia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 299
Hennington v. Georgia
Edward Colston, for plaintiff in error.
J. M. Terrell, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Hobson v. McArthur

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
41 U.S. 182
Hobson v. McArthur

## 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
# Hobson v. Lord/Dissent Bradley

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Bradley
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 397
Hobson v. Lord
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. It seems to me a dangerous precedent to allow contribution to the crew's wages when a ship does not deviate from her course, but is merely delayed for repairs on the route of her regular voyage. Such claims will too often be put forward, and a shipper will never know when he has done paying freight for the transportation of his property. I concede that the American rule is more liberal in this respect than the English; but I think it has never been carried so far as the present case.
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
# Hobson v. Lord

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Bradley
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 397
Hobson v. Lord
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
The facts and the assignment of errors are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William G. Choate for the plaintiffs in error.
The law of general average obviously and confessedly had its origin in jettisons. 3 Kent's Com., 12th ed., p. 233; Lowndes on Average, 2d ed., App. A, pp. 305-309, 316, 317.
In England, the wages and provisions of the crew during a detention for the repair of the ship, even when she is compelled for the common safety to bear away to a port of refuge, are not general average. Plummer v. Wildman, 3 M. & S. 482; Power v. Whitmore, 4 id. 141; Hallett v. Wigram, 9 C. B. 580.
According to the American decisions, wages and provisions during a detention to repair (unless the cause of the injury be itself a general average loss) are not general average, except when the vessel, in a proper case of imminent peril to ship and cargo, or to the voyage, voluntarily, and to escape the peril, leaves the proper course of her voyage, and bears away to a port of refuge; because, except in that case, the wages and provisions during the detention are not given or sacrificed for the common benefit, but are bought and paid for by the stipulated freight for the voyage, and the ship, in her delay for repairs, has only complied with her contract with the shipper. Jones v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 4 Dall. 246; Kingston v. Girard, id. 274; Leavenworth v. Delafield, 1 Caines's Cas. 574; Walden v. Le Roy, 2 id. 263; Henshaw v. Marine Ins. Co., id. 274; Penny v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 3 id. 155; Padelford v. Boardman, 4 Mass. 548; Wightman v. Macadam, 2 Brev. 230; Ross v. Ship Active, 2 Wash. C. C. 226; McBride v. Marine Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 431; Barker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 8 id. 307; Dunham v. Commercial Ins. Co., 11 id. 315; Spafford v. Dodge, 14 Mass. 66; Thornton v. Ins. Co., 12 Me. 150; Hause v. N. O. Ins. Co., 10 La. O. S. 1; Potter v. Ocean Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. 27; Bixby v. Franklin Ins. Co., id. 46, note; Giles v. Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Met. 40; The Brig Mary, 1 Sprag. Dec. 17; The Star of Hope, 9 Wall. 203; Peters v. Warren Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. 400.
It was no departure from the course of the voyage to haul the vessel to the storeship for the discharge of her cargo, or from there to the dry dock to be repaired, or back again to the hulk to receive her cargo.
The custom proved is not sufficient to justify the allowance of the expenses of the special agent sent out by the owner of the ship.
Mr. Edwin B. Smith, 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
# Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology

* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* 545 F.2d 222
* Dr. Joy Hochstadt, Plaintiff-Appellant
* v.
* Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology et al., Defendants-Appellees
* No. 76-1019
* United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
* September 24, 1976, Decided
AFFIRMED
Coffin, Chief Judge, McEntee and Campbell, Circuit Judges.
# Hong Kong

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hong Kong."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Hongkong: A History of Hongkong from the Time of Its Cession to the British Empire to the Year 1844 by William Tarrant (1861)
* "Hong-Kong," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Hong Kong," in The World Factbook, (ed.) by CIA (1982)
* "Hong Kong," in CIA World Fact Book, (ed.) by CIA (2004)
# Hong Kong Annual Report, 1953

* related portals: Hong Kong Annual Reports.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Hong Kong Annual Report, 1953
(Published by the Hong Kong Government in 1954. Copyright has expired since 2005.)

## Table of Contents

Part One
* Part 1: Review of the Year
Part Two
* Chapter 1: Population
* Chapter 2: Occupations, Wages and Labour Organization
* Chapter 3: Public Finance and Taxation
* Chapter 4: Currency and Banking
* Chapter 5: Commerce
* Chapter 6: Production
* Chapter 7: Social Services
* Chapter 8: Legislation
* Chapter 9: Justice, Police, Prisons and Records
* Chapter 10: Public Utilities and Public Works
* Chapter 11: Communications
* Chapter 12: Press, Broadcasting, Films and Government Information Services
* Chapter 13: Local Forces
* Chapter 14: General
Part Three
* Chapter 1: Geography and Climate
* Chapter 2: History
* Chapter 3: Administration
* Chapter 4: Weights and Measures
* Chapter 5: Reading List
# Hong Kong Annual Report, 1954

* related portals: Hong Kong Annual Reports.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Hong Kong Annual Report, 1954
(Published by the Hong Kong Government in March 1955. Copyright has expired since 2006.)

## Table of Contents

* Chapter 1: Review of the Year
* Chapter 2: Population
* Chapter 3: Occupations, Wages and Labour Organization
* Chapter 4: Public Finance and Taxation
* Chapter 5: Currency and Banking
* Chapter 6: Commerce
* Chapter 7: Production and Marketing
* Chapter 8: Education
* Chapter 9: Public Health and Urban Services
* Chapter 10: Housing, Resettlement and Town Planning
* Chapter 11: Social Welfare
* Chapter 12: Legislation
* Chapter 13: Law and Order
* Chapter 14: Public Utilities and Public Works
* Chapter 15: Communications
* Chapter 16: Press, Public Relations, Broadcasting and Films
* Chapter 17: Religion, Research, The Arts, Sport
* Chapter 18: Local Forces
* Chapter 19: The Geographical Setting
* Chapter 20: History
* Chapter 21: Administration
# Honeywood v. Rockefeller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 1
Honeywood v. Rockefeller
Moses M. Falk, for appellants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Irving Galt, Asst. Sol. Gen., and Sheldon Raab, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
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
# Honeywood v. Rockefeller/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 1
Honeywood v. Rockefeller
Since we agree with the District Court, from our examination of the record, 'that no good cause has been shown for the granting of a preliminary injunction in advance of a trial upon which the facts necessary for a determination of the merits of this action can be fully developed,' the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Mr. Justice GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# Hong Kong Annual Report, 1946/Part 3/Chapter 4

The weights and measures in use in the Colony consist of the standards in use in the United Kingdom and of the following Chinese weights and measures:
| 1 fan (candareen) | = | .0133 ounces avoirdupois |
| 1 tsin (mace) | = | .133 ounces avoirdupois |
| 1 leung (tael) | = | 1.33 ounces avoirdupois |
| 1 kan (catty) | = | 1.33 pounds avoirdupois |
| 1 tam (picul) | = | 133.33 pounds avoirdupois |
| 1 check (foot) | = | 14⅝ inches divided into 10 tsun (inches) and each tsun into ten fan or tenths. |
The full set of standards was not recovered on liberation, but it was found possible to resume control of weights and measures in August, 1946. At the end of the year the possibility of repealing Ordinance No. 2 of 1885, under which control is now exercised, and of introducing more modern provisions based on those in force in Malaya was under consideration.