alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 13,996.

#### THORNTON et al. v. CALDWELL.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 524.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1808.

Evidence — Memoranda— Demand bt Notary— Notarial Book.

If the notary does not recollect the fact of making a demand, &e., but produces his notarial book in which the fact is stated, and testifies that he made the entry in his book at the time, and is certain, from those memoranda that lie did make the demand as there stated — such evidence is admissible to the jury.

Assumpsit [by Thornton and White, commissioners of the city of Washington] against *1147[Caldwell, administrator of Scott] the indorser of a promissory note payable 4th February, 1801, "drawn by U. Forrest for six thousand two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and ninety-two cents.

Samuel Hanson, a notary-public, was sworn for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Jones, for the plaintiff,

asked the witness whether he had the note and called on General F. for payment on the 9th of February, 1801. The witness said he had no recollection of it, but he made a note of it in his register of protests, and indorsed on the note the words, “Protest, 1.70,” which he produced, and said he had no doub't of it, but he could not speak from his memory; that his memory was not refreshed by the book, for he had no recollection of the fact, but he had no doubt of it. He was certain, from those memorandums, that he did demand the payment as there stated. The note was only noted for non-payment — never actually protested — that is, the protest was never drawn out in form.

Mr. Jones contended that the noting in the book is as much an official act of the notary as. the protest would have been, and is as much evidence of the fact of the demand: it is the best evidence. The witness means that he was in the habit of entering there all notes by him protested, the time of demand and the answer given to the demand. That he never made an entry in the book which was not true.

P. B. Key and Mr. Caldwell, contra,

cited Chit. 91. Noting is not sufficient; there must be a protest, if protesting be necessary. The notary is a mere agent of the plaintiffi as to giving of notice to the defendant. His official duty only extends to protesting according to the law merchant. His duty at all events did not extend beyond demanding payment from Forrest the maker, and protesting it for nonpayment

THE COURT

(having some doubts) admitted the testimony as competent evidence to the jury, not because the notary’s book had any peculiar authority or validity; but because it appeared to be the best evidence which under such circumstances could be expected.
No. 49464.

#### Protest 37366-K of Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the cheese is similar to that passed upon in Abstracts 42146 and 42309 the claim was sustained as to the Holland Edam and baby Gouda cheese in question.
No. 43129.

#### Protest 694432-G of S. Lisk & Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel rubber articles like those the subject of Abstract 41517 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1537. Joke articles in chief value of paper similar to those the subject of Abstract 37540 were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1413. Novelties in chief value of fur were held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e). Abstract 25607 followed.
### Ground waters of the Indio region, California, with a sketch of the Colorado Desert

By: Walter Curran Mendenhall

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp225

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Case No. 13,997.

#### THORNTON v. CHAPMAN.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 244.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1821.

Arbitration — Notice to Parties — Umpire.

An umpire must give notice to the parties, and to the arbitrators of the time and place of his proceeding to act upon the subject submitted.

Debt [by Nicholas Thornton against Charles T. Chapman] upon the award of an umpire.

Mr. Taylor, for the defendant,

objected at the trial, that the umpire had given no notice to the defendant or to the arbitrators of the time and place of his proceeding to act upon the matter submitted.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,

absent,) was of opinion, and instructed the jury, that the award would not support the plaintiff’s action if they should be of opinion from the evidence that the defendant had no notice, &e. Non pros.
Case No. 8,105.

#### In re LATHROP et al.

[3 N. B. R. 46 (Quarto, 11); 1 2 Am. Law T. 124.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

July, 1869.

BANKRUPTCY — WITHDRAWAL OP COUNSEL — EFFECT of Default upon Discharge.

In this case Mr. Da Costa, on behalf of petitioning creditors, moved for an adjudication of bankruptcy.

1

 [Reprinted from 3 N. B. R. 46 (Quarto 11), by permission.]

Augustus F. Smith appeared for the debtors, Messrs. Lathrop, Ludington & Co. The question presented was, as to whether, in case he should withdraw his appearance, and suffer a default to be taken against his clients, all the allegations in the petition should be taken as true in subsequent proceedings for their discharge, and THE.COURT [BLATCHFORD, District Judge] decided that question in the negative, to the effect that the debtors would not be prejudiced in their application for a discharge by submitting to such default.
Before the Third Division,

October 6, 1941

No. 46399.

#### Petitions 5888-R, etc., of E. H. Corrigan (San Antonio).

*281Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared that all of the importations were entered in March to May, 1936, and were not appraised until May, 1939, and that at the time of the entry the petitioner accepted the values upon the consular invoices as the correct market values, as he was familiar with the market in Mexico and considered the values in line with prior shipments, admitting, however, that he had never received shipments covering such large quantities. It appeared that the petitioner is a customs broker and had entered the merchandise in his own name and that, as he testified, had he suspected that the consular invoice values did not represent the values for duty purposes, he would not have entered the same under his term bond and made himself liable for possible increased duties. The court was of the opinion from the evidence that the petitioner endeavored to make a full and candid explanation of the circumstances and conditions surrounding the entry of the merchandise herein. It was found that the petitioner was without intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts, to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise, or to defraud the revenue of the United States. The petitions were therefore granted.
#### Michaelian & Kohlberg (W. J. Byrnes & Co., N. Y.) et al. *v.*United States

No. 6819.

Entry No. 11325, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 11, 1945, etc.

Certified September 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 13, 1945, etc.

(Decided January 28, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

On the undisputed facts, I find export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the articles in question, and that such statutory values thereof are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.40

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                          WERNER HOLDING CO. (PA), INC.
                              STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                              --------------------


The Werner Holding Co. (PA), Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended as follows:

1.       New, revised EBITDA targets as set forth in Exhibit A for individuals
         receiving stock option grants after December 1998 shall be as follows:


                        EARNINGS BEFORE INTEREST, TAXES,
                          DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION
                            (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)


                              (A)               (B)                 (C)
                                                                Cumulative
      Fiscal Year           Minimum           Target              Target
      -----------           -------           ------              ------

         [S]                   [C]            [C]                [C]
         1999                   59,400          66,000                 --
         2000                   67,500          75,000            141,000
         2001                   82,800          92,000            233,000
         2002                   99,000         110,000            343,000
         2003                  108,000         120,000            463,000
         2004                  117,900         131,000            594,000

2.       All other provisions of the Plan unchanged hereby shall continue in
         full force and effect.

Pursuant to Werner Holding Co. (PA), Inc. Board of Directors action dated
December 8, 1999.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, A.W.Bergeron, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof AES Red Oak, LLC (the “registrant”);

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                                       Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                                       The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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

 

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                                       The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  May 13,2005

 
|   | /s/ A.W. Bergeron |
|--------|-------------------|
|   | A.W. Bergeron     |
|   |              |
|   | President         |

 

----
(Reap. Dec. 9455)

#### Advance Shipping Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 888032.

(Decided June 9, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reap-praisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 53275.

#### Cowie & Company *v.*United States,

protest 59380-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
### Geology and water resources of a portion of south-central Oregon

By: Gerald A. Waring

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp220

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Metasco Trading Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6818.

Entry No. 3821, etc.

Invoices dated Yeovil, England, October 4, 1946, etc.

Certified October 16, 1946, etc.

(Decided January 28, 1947)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

. *Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.51**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO****AMERICAN PHYSICIANS CAPITAL, INC.**2007 BONUS PROGRAM**     **THIS AMENDMENT**to the American Physicians Capital, Inc. 2007 Bonus Program (the “Plan”) isintended to clarify the application of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) tothe Plan.     **WHEREAS,**compensation that is earned and vested in one calendar year and paid in a subsequentcalendar year is deemed to constitute a “short term deferral” not subject to the deferredcompensation provisions of Code Section 409A if the compensation is paid out in a lump sum withintwo and a half months after the end of the calendar year in which it is earned.     **NOW THEREFORE**, the American Physicians Capital 2007 Bonus Program is hereby amended to specifythat all bonus amounts earned in 2007 shall be paid out in cash within two and a half months afterthe end of the 2007 calendar year.     **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, American Physicians Capital, Inc. has caused this Amendment No. 1 to beexecuted as of October 25, 2007.      **AMERICAN PHYSICIANS CAPITAL, INC.****
# C_2016454EN.01001002.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/10

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Taranto — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Davide Durante

(Case C-438/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Cour of Justice - Identical questions referred - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Gambling - Restrictions - Overriding reasons relating to the public interest - Proportionality - Conditions taking part in a tendering procedure and evaluation of economic and financial capacity - Tenderer excluded for failure to produce testimonials of his economic and financial capacity given by two separate banking institutions))

(2016/C 454/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Taranto

Criminal proceedings against

Davide Durante

Operative part of the order

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires operators desiring to respond to a call for tenders for the award of licences in the field of betting and gambling to produce evidence of their economic and financial capacity by means of declarations made by at least two banking establishments and does not allow that capacity to be demonstrated otherwise, provided that that provision is capable of satisfying the conditions of proportionality laid down by the Court’s case-law, which it is for the court making the reference to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

---
No. 44275.

#### Protest 986075-G of Advance Solvents & Chemical Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that 992 bags of the sodium sulphate were legibly marked with the words “Made in Germany.” The protest was sustained to that extent.
#### Edna Jane FAVREAU, Appellant, v. Walter F. FAVREAU, Appellee.

No. 97-3191.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 23, 1999.

Rehearing Denied, June 18, 1999.

Edna Jane Favreau, Melbourne, pro se.

Henry J. Martocci, Roekledge, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.315(a).

GRIFFIN, C.J., W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
33597.

#### HOWELL v. HOWELL.

Bowles, Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying the appellant’s motion to set aside a judgment awarding custody of the parties’ minor child to the appellee.

The parties were divorced by order of the trial court on September 2, 1975. Prior to that order, the parties entered into an agreement which purported to resolve all issues of alimony and child custody between them. The agreement provided in part that, "The husband shall have full custody and control of the minor child of the parties, provided, however, the wife shall have the right to visit with the child and to have the child visit with her at reasonable times and under circumstances that are reasonable, considering always, the general welfare of the child.” This agreement was approved by the trial court and made a part of the final decree of divorce.

On June 16, 1977, appellant filed a complaint in equity to set aside that portion of the divorce judgment awarding custody, alleging that she was fraudulently induced to sign the settlement agreement by which she voluntarily relinquished custody of her child. The trial judge after hearing evidence on the issue found no fraud. *109He refused to set the judgment aside, but modified the original decree so as to establish specific visitation times for appellant. We affirm.

Submitted May 19, 1978

Decided September 8, 1978.

*Joseph S. Crespi,*for appellant.

*Kenneth R. Brown,*for appellee.

In his order, the trial judge stated that while the testimony was conflicting, he found no fraud perpetrated upon appellant or the court. The testimony of both the husband and counsel for the husband was that appellant signed the agreement voluntarily, that it was read to her and explained in detail. The circumstances surrounding the conduct of the parties strongly pointed to the fact that appellant had knowledge at the time she signed the agreement that appellee would have custody of the minor child.

We have reviewed the record and find evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. Therefore, we affirm his order refusing to set aside the judgment awarding custody of the parties’ minor child to appellee.

As appellant’s action was equitable in nature, it was not error for the trial judge to hear the matter without a *jury. Keith v. Keith,*231 Ga. 230 (1) (200 SE2d 891) (1973).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*