alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN SMITH and MARGARET, his wife vs. PETER JOHNSON.

To an action by husband and wife, on a note to the wife dum sola, the defendant cannot plead by way of *set-off*a sale of goods, &c,, to husband and wife, which is the husband’s separate liability.

Narr in assumpsit by husband and wife, on a promissory note given to the wife. Plea of a set-off for goods sold, &e.; money had, &c., &e., by defendant to said Smith and wife, at their instance and request; and for the use and occupation of a dwelling house, &c., of the defendant by the said John Smith and Margaret, his wife, at their special instance and request, and by the permission and sufferance of the defendant. Demurrer and joinder.

*41*Bayard, jr.,*

in support of the demurrer, saidThe plea of a set-off is like a declaration and must describe the debt to be set-off with the same certainty. (1 *Oh. PI.*574-5.) Nothing can be set-off which may not be sued for. Here the set-off alledges a debt due from Smith *and wife;*but the married woman could not create such a debt; her contract would not bind her. (8 *T. Rep.*545, Marshal *vs.*Rutten, 2 *Wm. Blac.*1286; *Cro. Jac.*645; 1 *Taunt. Rep.*212.) Suit against husband and wife, on a contract with the wife dum sola, but alledging a promise after marriage held bad. (16 *Johns.*Rep. 281; 2 *Chitt. Rep.*697; 18 C. *& R.*460; 10 *Barn. & Cress.*558; 21 *Eng. C. L.*128; 2 *Esp. N. P.*594; *Bull N. P.*179.) If the subjects of this set-off were in a declaration, it would be bad on general demurrer.

Huffington.

All the counts in the declaration, after setting out the note to the wife dum sola, alledge promises to husband and wife. If the set-off of promises to husband and wife be not proper, the declaration is improper, and the demurrer attaches to this defect.

*The Court*

stopped *Mr. Bayard,*in reply. On a note given to a married woman, the husband may join her or sue alone; if he join her, his separate debt cannot be set off, and the subject of this plea is the separate debt of the husband; for the wife could not bind herself by such contracts. Possibly a claim founded on a contract by the wife dum sola, might be set off in' such a case as this; for that would be a joint obligation against a joint demand; as to which see 10 *Barn. & Cress.*558.

Judgment for demurrant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This restated data schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from Boise Cascade Office Products Corporation's Balance Sheet at September 30,
1997, and from its Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30,
1997.  The informaiton presented is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,598
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  381,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,055
<INVENTORY>                                    186,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               612,642
<PP&E>                                         320,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,261,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          365,482
<BONDS>                                        366,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           656
<OTHER-SE>                                     492,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,261,531
<SALES>                                      1,878,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,878,218
<CGS>                                        1,408,311
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,408,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               388,924
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,478
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,325
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.8

Consent of
John Wakeford, P. Geo.



To the Board of Directors of Miramar Mining Corporation.



I consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of Miramar Mining Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003, of the resource and reserve estimates for the Hope Bay project prepared by the MHBL staff in accordance with NI 43-101; the reference to me as the reviewer of these estimates; the description of certain mineral resource estimates and other information pertaining to the Hope Bay project; and to the use of my name under in this annual report as a named expert.



Dated as of the 24th day of March, 2005



John Wakeford, P. Geo.



/s/ John Wakeford
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          61,811
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,569,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,883
<INVENTORY>                                     31,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,662,513
<PP&E>                                       4,472,258
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,552,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,786,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,764,376
<BONDS>                                        889,248
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     21,195
<COMMON>                                       585,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,786,521
<SALES>                                        361,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,639
<CGS>                                          149,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  310,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,948
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,400
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,835
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Renting GSA Property

Many business owners and realtors are not aware that they may lease space from the federal government. Federal space has much to offer in the way of amenities, and generally utility and cleaning costs are well below industry average.

Historic Buildings Filming on Location>>

Urban Development/Good Neighbor Program>>

Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 [PDF - 96 KB]

Current Outlease Vacancies

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  GSA Properties-  Overview 
-  2023 Lighthouse season 
-  Capital Investment and Leasing Prospectus Library 
-  Courthouse Program 
-  Inflation Reduction Act 
-  Land ports of entry and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
-  Outleasing 
-  Regional Buildings 
-  Renting GSA Property 
-  Visiting Public Buildings 
-  Unused & Underused Space
#### McQuistian *v.*State.

Proof of vence. Where, upon appeal to this court, the record in a criminal case shows that the *venue*was not proven on the trial below, this court will reverse the judgment of conviction.

*Appeal from Benton Circuit Court.*

Hon. E. I). Ham, Circuit Judge.

*436"Walker & Cullom, for appellant.

Montgomery, Attorney General, for appellee.

Wilshire, C. J.

At the March term of the Benton county circuit court,, James McQuistian was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years, upon an indictment for an assault with intent to commit a rape. The defendant moved the court "below for a new tidal, which motion the court overruled. The defendant excepted to the ruling of the court, and appealed to this court.

The motion of the defendant, in the court below, and the grounds upon which it was made for a new trial, does not appear in the transcript of the record. There appears only the statement that the motion was made. But, upon an examination of the whole record, we find, from the evidence brought up by the bill of exceptions, that the venue whs not proven, and, for this error of the proceedings in the *court below,*the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EAGLE WINDOW & DOOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AND TAYLOR BUILDING PRODUCTS COMPANY (WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES) AS OF AUGUST
29, 1996 AND FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001052497
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1996
<CASH>                                         395,859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,736,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                   791,521
<INVENTORY>                                  8,483,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,929,840
<PP&E>                                      25,305,652
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,339,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,989,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,149,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       211,851
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,520,631)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,989,556
<SALES>                                     39,971,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,971,058
<CGS>                                       33,832,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,832,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,090,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,142,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,594,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (907,933)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,686,162)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,686,162)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND THE  RELATED CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS
FOR  THE NINE  MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,  1997  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN  ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         100,863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,109
<INVENTORY>                                     28,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               258,106
<PP&E>                                       2,843,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                 616,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,901,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          227,184
<BONDS>                                      1,036,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           940
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,458,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,901,168
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,075,553
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  597,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,441
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                248,451
<INCOME-TAX>                                    87,962
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            160,489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,225)   
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Thomas W. DONOVAN et al., Appellees.

No. 74-1553.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 10, 1974.

Decided April 8, 1977..

Frederick M. Coleman, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Marc P. Richman, Edwin J. Gale, Shirley Baccus-Lobel, Atty., Appellate Section, Crim. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Carmen A. Policy, Youngstown, Ohio, Robert W. Ent, Cincinnati, Ohio, Christopher F. Nardi, Cleveland, Ohio, Bradford M. Gearinger, Akron, Ohio, for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, ENGEL, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On March 17,1975, this court rendered an opinion affirming the order of the District Court suppressing certain evidence. 513 F.2d 337.

On January 18, 1977, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court and remanded the case for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of that Court. -U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 658, 50 L.Ed.2d 652.

Accordingly, the order of the District Court suppressing evidence is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Phillip LEMOINE v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62597.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Phillip Lemoine applying for remedial writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
In The Matter Of:

EPA Bristol Bay Public Meeting - New Stuyahok

August 13, 2014

Midnight Sun Court Reporters

511 W. 9th Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99501

Ph. 907-258-7100

Fax 907-276-6727

To open files, click on the desired file type in bookmark on left.

For quick saving or searching multiple files, click attachments tab (or paperclip) on left.

For best viewing/searching, use Adobe Reader/Acrobat ver. 9 or higher

(www.adobe.com).
#### MOSES RASH vs. GEORGE PARRIS.

A constable cannot be charged under the act of 1833 for neglect of duty, without show, ing process regularly in- his hands.

Certiorari to Justice Ruth.

The record showed a proceeding by summons (under the act of 1833,) against Moses Rash, a constable, *“*for neglecting as by law required, to make return of his proceedings on execution process against Andrew Mitchell, to show cause why an execution should not issue against him for eleven dollars and twenty cents, principal; two dollars and sixty-five cents interest, and seventy-five cents costs, being the amount of the original execution, *Parris*vs. Mitchellwhich execution was issued by Justice Coverdale, July 13, 1839; returnable 28th September next, “ and delivered to Harper and Moore security.”

*Frame,*for plaintiff in certiorari.

*Bates,*for defendant, p. b.

Exceptions :—1. That the execution was never delivered to Rash as constable, but to Harper and Moore, sureties, as appears of record.

2. That the execution was issued by Justice Coverdale, and the summons by *another*and not the *same*justice of the peace.

The judgment was reversed on the first exception. 8 vol. 265.
# Sept 2019
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 01036

- CV

IN RE PEDRO RODRIGUEZ
Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On November 30, 2023, relator Pedro Rodriguez filed a petition for writ of mandamus.
After considering the petition and record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief
sought . Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).
The stay imposed on November 30, 2023 is lifted.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. CC

- 16

- 60 , styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Veronic a Rodriguez and Pedro Rodriguez and In the Interest of Pedro Rodriguez III , pending in the County Court at Law
, Starr County, Texas, the Honorable Orlando Rodriguez presiding.
#### Wadley and wife *v.*Harris.

Wliere a declaration in replevin omits tlie averment tliat the goods “were to he delivered to tlie plaintiff,” &c., tlie defect is cured after verdict, under our statute of amendments.

*Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court*

Hon. Liberty Bartlett, Circuit Judge.

Flana&in, for appellant.

The appellant submits that the plaintiff, in his declaration, must set forth such facts as will show a right of recovery, and the want of such a showing can'be taken advantage of by mo*37tion in arrest. *Sevier v. Holliday, 3 Ark., 513; Keith v. Pratt, 5 Ark., 661.*In tliis action the remedy is given by the statute, and certain allegations are required to sustain the action. One of the most important of these allegations is omitted.

'Witherspoon, for the appellee.

The defect in the declaration is cured by the verdict. *3 Ark., 513; 5 Ark., 73;*also by our statute of amendments. *Gould’s P)ig.,p. 864.*

Walker, C. J.

This is an action of replevin, tried by a jury, upon the issues of non-detinet and property in defendant, who rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was rendered. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment. His motion was overruled, and he has brought the case before us by appeal.

The only question presented for our consideration is : Was the declaration sufficient to warrant the verdict and judgment of the court? The particular defect pointed out and relied upon by counsel is, that there is no averment that the goods, alleged to have been delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, ‘hvere to be delivered to the plaintiff when thereunto afterward requested.”

Conceding that this would have been cause for demurrer, we think that the defect, after verdict, is cured under our statute of amendments. The declaration presents a good cause of action defectively stated, and not a defective cause of action ; and, -when such is the case, every intendment is to be made in favor of the declaration. Whatever is implied, or is infer-able from the state of the pleadings, will be presumed in favor of the pleading and the judgment. *Keller v. Henry, 24 Ark., 583; Knight v. Sharp, id., 610.*

The motion in an-est of judgment was therefore properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 22.1


                     SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                              JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION

SmartForce USA                                     Delaware
Personal Training Systems, Inc.                    California
Fidalco Limited                                    Ireland
SmartForce (Ireland) Limited                       Ireland
SmartForce (UK) Limited                            England
SmartForce Africa (Proprietary) Limited            South Africa
CBT Finance Limited                                Grand Cayman
CBT (Technology) Limited                           Ireland
SmartForce Canada Limited                          Canada
SmartForce Deutscheland GmbH                       Germany
SmartForce Australia Pty Limited                   Australia
SmartForce Benelux, B.V.                           The Netherlands
SmartForce Mentoring Group Limited.                Canada
SmartForce Middle East Limited                     Bahamas
SmartForce Business Skills Limited                 Ireland
SmartForce Business Skills Inc.                    Delaware
SmartCertify Direct, Inc                           Florida
Learning Productions LLC.                          Delaware
# C_2020129EN.01002101.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/21

---

Action brought on 21 February 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-118/20)

(2020/C 129/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of packaging) — Application for Registration No 17 959 421

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2019 in Case R 978/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council

---