alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
6782

#### LITTLE v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

*Ruled by case of Amos*v. *Western Union Tel. Co., post,*259.

Before Aldrich, J., Cherokee.

Reversed.

Action by Perry C. Little against Western Union Telegraph Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

*Messrs. George H. Fearons, Joiim, Gary Evans*and /. *C. Jeffries,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Butter & Osborne,*contra.

Arguments reported in the Amos case.

March 2, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

*256Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action for damages alleged to 'have 'been sustained by the plaintiff on ^pcounf of the defendant’s failure to deliver promptly a telegram’.

The allegations of -the complaint material to the questions presented by the exceptions are os follows::

> “That on or about the first day of January, 1906, while plaintiff was in the city of Spartanburg, being then on his Way from Gaffney to Union to attend the funeral of his wife’s mother, he delivered to the agent of the defendant at Spartanburg, S. C., a prepaid! message directed to his wife at Union, of which, owing, to the fact that the same has never been delivered, plaintiff is unable to give the exact wording, but the same in substance was as fallows :

> “ ‘To Mrs. Letha Little, Union, S. C.

> “ ‘Postpone funeral and hold body of your mother till I come. (Signed) P. C. Little.’

> “That the defendant had due notice of the importance of said message, and hadi knowledge of the damages that would result to plaintiff by failing to' deliver said message with due promptness. That by reason of the acts and defaults of the defendant, above enumerated, the plaintiff was deprived of 'the privilege of and prevented from seeing and being with his said mother-in-law before and at said funeral, by reason of which he suffered great mental ¡anguish and suffering in the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars.”

'Tine defendant demurred to the complaint on the following grounds:

1. “Because the telegraph company had no knowledge from the telegram, of any tender, affectionate relations existing between the plaintiff and his mother-in-law', which would put it on notice of ’any mental anguish or distress as a consequence oif the .delay in the delivery of 'the samle. Neither does the complaint contain such, allegations.

2. “Because under the mental anguish act, the law does rot presume suffering or mental anguish to result to' the son-in-law, by reason of not being able to attend the funeral and *257burial of his mother-in-law; such damages; are recoverable only between near blood relations.”

The demurrer is overruled.

The defendant objected to the introduction of testimony in behalf of the plaintiff tending to show that he had suffered mental anguish; also that the relations existing between him and his mo'ther-in-law; were tender and affectionate, on .the ground that there were no allegation's in the complaint setting forth such relations.

The cases of *Amos*v. *Tel. Co., post,*259, and *McDowell*v. *Tel. Co.,*following, show that the demurrer and the objections to the testimony should have been sustained.

I't is the judgment oif this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #10796] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Missouri, dated 03/13/07. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Winter Storms.                     

*Incident Period:*                         11/30/2006 through 12/02/2006.                     

*Effective Date:*                         03/13/07.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/01/2007.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an Economic Injury declaration for the State of Missouri dated 02/01/2007, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. 

*Primary Counties:*                     St. Charles.                 

*Contiguous Counties:*

Illinois: Calhoun, Jersey, Madison. 

Missouri: Franklin, Lincoln, St. Louis, Warren.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002.)

Dated: March 13, 2007. 

Steven C. Preston, 

Administrator.

 [FR Doc. E7-5080 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2365. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the Panel by faxing to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop1006MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3205, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for additional information.                 

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director,  Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E7-4965 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 52350.

protests 802380-G (D), etc. (New York).

#### H. H. Schmidt Glove Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*324Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
No. 38883.

#### Protests 919909-G, etc., of Rev. Georges E. Poirier et al. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

As there was nothing in the record to sustain the claims made the protests were overruled.
No. 49221.

#### Protests 6390-K, etc., of E. Leitz, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared from an oral stipulation entered into at the trial that the merchandise consists of sheets of paper each containing eight pictures, four on each side; that each sheet had printed thereon the words “printed in Germany” when imported and that the collector required these words be placed under each picture; that at the time of importation the wooden cases were properly marked but that the immediate containers of the sheets were not so marked; and that the sheets in question were imported for use as illustrations in magazines printed by and for the account of the importer. Several exhibits were received in evidence. Counsel for defendant cited abstract of decision of the Commissioner of Customs in T. D. 49082 (4), amending T. D. 48744 (9), and plaintiff cited T. D. 49299 (3), but the court was of the opinion that the abstract decisions are not regulations because they do not bear the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, citing *Mitsui*v. *United States*(T. D. 49357) and T. D. 49047 (I.) (1) (b). It was found that each sheet bore a marking sufficient to indicate the name of the country of origin. It was therefore held that the merchandise was legally marked and not subject to the additional duty. *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) and *United States*v. *Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc.*(27 id. 267, C. A. D. 98) cited.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANK MANCUSO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Richard L. Gray*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Vincent Panaro*and *Mr. Edward J. Phelan*for the respondent.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael D. Stern, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief :



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 24, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael D. Stern,  
|                         |  | Michael D. Stern       
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The CNO Executive Panel will form consensus advice for the final report on the findings and recommendations of the Middle East Subcommittee to the CNO. The meeting                               ( print page 1986)                            will consist of discussions of potential future operating environments and force posture implications.                     

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on February 2, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation Boardroom at 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

CDR David Di Tallo, CNO Executive Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311, 703-681-4908. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

M.A. Harvison, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Office.

[FR Doc. E7-500 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
No. 51770.

#### Protests 789653-G, etc., of Associated Commercial Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CARVEL RICE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 94 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13079-13080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4961]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service--Tennessee


Notice of Proposed Changes to Section IV of the Tennessee Field 
Office Technical Guide (FOTG)

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Tennessee, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in the Tennessee 
NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, Section IV, for review and comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for 
Tennessee that changes must be made in the NRCS Field Office Technical 
Guide, specifically in practice standards Residue and Tillage 
Management, Mulch Till; Residue and Tillage Management, No-till/Strip 
Till/Direct Seed; and Residue and Tillage Management, Ridge Till to 
account for improved technology. These practice standards can be used 
in conservation systems designed to treat highly erodible cropland.

DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with 
the date of this publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to Kevin Brown, 
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 
675 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, 
telephone number (615) 277-2531. Copies of the practice standards will 
be made available upon written request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

[[Page 13080]]

states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS state 
technical guides used to perform highly erodible land and wetland 
provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and 
comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Tennessee will receive 
comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a 
determination will be made by the NRCS in Tennessee regarding 
disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will 
be made to the subject practice standards.

    Dated: March 8, 2007.
Kevin Brown,
State Conservationist.
 [FR Doc. E7-4961 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|November 14, 2007 | /s/ John P. Manning    
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | John P. Manning        
|                  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER A. FERREIRA SR. 

and EVA JEAN FERREIRA,

2:04-CV-1916-MCE-DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

M/V CCNI ANTOFAGASTA, her

engines, tackle, apparel,

furniture, etc., COMPANIA

CHILENA DE NAVEGACION

INTEROCEANICA S.A., IN REM,

PORT OF STOCKTON, SECHSTE

REEDEREI ALSTERUFER 26 GmbH &

CIE KG, and SOPHIE RICKMERS

SCHIFFAHRTSGESELLSCHAFT mbH &

CIE KG,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On the motion of Defendant SOPHIE RICKMERS

SCHIFFAHRTSGESELLSCHAFT mbH & CIE, KG for Issuance of a

commission pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b),

calling for the taking of the testimony of Yury Ilyn for the

purpose of preserving material and relevant testimony for trial

regarding the subject matter of this action, the Motion is

granted subject to the following conditions and terms:

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 109 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1) The clerk of this court shall issue a commission to Any

Consul or Vice-Consul of the United States Embassy, Kiev,

Ukraine, authorizing him or her to administer the oath and

preside over the oral deposition on notice of Yury Ilyn at the

Palace Del Mar (Superior) Hotel located at 1 Khulstany Lane,

Odessa, Ukraine on June 30, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

2) The commission shall authorize the Consul or ViceConsul to administer the oath and preside over the deposition

telephonically.

3) The commission shall direct that the testimony be

recorded by a stenographic reporter who will prepare a certified

transcript of the proceedings.

4) Defendant SOPHIE RICKMERS SCHIFFAHRTSGESELLSCHAFT mbH &

CIE, KG is hereby ordered to pay any and all costs and fees

associated with the taking of Yury Ilyn’s deposition, including,

but not limited to, all consulor and witness fees in connection

with the execution of this commission.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 22, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 109 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LEO R. GRANT, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 187, 43 CMR 27

No. 23,471

December 4, 1970

*Lieutenant Allen D. Black,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

Failure of the military judge to interrogate the appellant on the record to determine, in compliance with paragraph 53d(2)(&), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), that Grant’s request for trial by a military judge alone was “understandingly made” is not reversible error for the reasons stated in United States v Jenkins, 20 USCMA 112, 42 CMR 304 (1970), and United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970).

The decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent.

I would reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review and direct that a rehearing may be ordered for the reasons set forth in my separate opinions in United States v Jenkins. 20 USCMA 112, 42 CMR 304 (1970), and United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970).