alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9897.

#### Coppedge *v.*The State.

Decided October 8, 1918.

Indictment for assault with intent to rape—conviction of assault; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. Mdy 31, 1918.

*W. D. McNeil,*for plaintiff in error.

*John P.Boss, .solicitor-general, B. F. Birozier, O. T. Gower,*contra. - . ■.

Brotles, P. J.

1. Under all the facts of the case the- admission of the testimony of the prosecutrix, giving the substance of conversations between herself and two other persons, not in the presence of the defendant but within a few minutes after the alleged assault, was not erroneous, as the evidence authorized a finding that these third persons were eoeonspirators of the defendant, and that-the conversations were had at the instance of the defendant, for the purpose of intimidating the prosecutrix and concealing the crime. Moreover, a considerable portion of this testimony was admissible for the purpose of explaining why the prosecutrix failed to make prompt complaint against the defendant.

2. When considered in the light of the entire charge of the court, no harmful error appears in either of 'the excerpts complained of.

3. The conviction of. the defendant not depending entirely. upon circumstantial evidence, it was not error, in the absence of a timely written request, for the court to fail to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence.

4. The court did not err in refusing to give ilie requested instruction set forth in the 8th special ground of the motion for a new. trial.' So-much of it as was applicable to the facts of the ease was sufficiently covered by the charge given.

5. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial aie'without merit, and are not of such a character as to require elaboration ,of the ruling thereon.

6. The verdict is amply supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR**

**PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

                In connection with the accompanying quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,2008 (the “Report”), I, R. Scott Stevenson, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., hereby certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc.

 

This written statement isbeing furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to theReport.

 

 
| May 15, 2008 |   | /s/ R. Scott Stevenson           |
|-------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
| Date              |   | R. Scott Stevenson               |
|              |   | Senior Vice President  and Chief |
|              |   | Financial Officer                |

 

 

                A signed original of this written statement requiredby § 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
#### M. P. Norcum *v.*Sarah Shivil.

Adverse Possession. — Evidence of Occupancy.

Evidence of the occupancy of a tract of land, over-lapping on an adjoining tract, for more than 20 years, sufficient to constitute title by adverse possession.

APPEAL PROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 1, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin:

This suit involved the title to a small parcel of ground in the •town of Mt. Vernon, claimed by the appellee, Sarah Shivil, as .part of lot No. 14, conveyed to her by James C. Jones and wife ¡by a deed, dated November 26, 1866. '

The defendant, Norcum, who claimed lot No. 15 under a title adverse to that of the plaintiff, denied that the title deed of Jones and others, under whom the plaintiff claimed, embraced the ground *221in. dispute, and relied on an adverse possession of tbe ground for over 20 years. Tbe court rendered a judgment for tbe plaintiff, and Norcum bas appealed.

*Garter, for appellant.*

There seems to bave been some difficulty in ascertaining tbe precise location of tbe lots of tbe town as originally laid out, but we tbink tbe conclusion is authorized from tbe evidence, that tbe ground in contest is part of tbe original boundary of lot No. 14, but it appears from tbe testimony, Iiawk, a remote vendor of lot No. 14, under whom tbe plaintiff’s title is derived, who purchased from W. H. Kirttz in 1854, that tbe supposed line to which be purchased and subsequently sold, did not include tbe ground in dispute, and tbe weight of tbe evidence is that for more than fifteen years or even 20 years, before the institution of this suit, Norcum and those under whom be claimed and who claimed-to own and occupy lot No. 15, were in tbe peaceable adverse possession of tbe ground in controversy as part of lot No. 15 up to tbe line mentioned by Hawks, it being tbe site of an old fence, recognized as tbe line by Hawks and others.

We are of opinion therefore, that tbe judgment is erroneous.

Wherefore tbe judgment is- reversed and tbe cause remanded for a judgment dismissing tbe action.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 10","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2EuBjNhJDJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-10\/\">Expedition 10<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-10\/embed\/#?secret=2EuBjNhJDJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 10” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2EuBjNhJDJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/iss010-s-002.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
#### J. T. Shelby *v.*T. P. Young.

Pleadings — Allegations in Petition and Answer, Justifying Verdict — Denials in Reply — Sufficiency.

APPEAL EROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 14, 1871.

*Thompson, for appellant.*

*Durham, J acolo, for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

There are two fatal errors in the judgment in this case. First, appellant distinctly alleges that appellee is indebted to him in the sum of fifty dollars from Thomas Cogar, which Cogar owed appellant and appropriated the same to his own use. To this allegation he made no reply; and, *second,*he admits an indebtedness to appellant of $158.32, but undertakes to plead by way of counter-claim to that admitted indebtedness, other demands against appellant in his reply that he could not do. Under that state of pleading appellant was entitled to a credit for the amount charged in his answer to have been collected of Cogar, and the instruction asked by him in reference to the amount, admitted to be owing to him in appellee’s reply, should have been given. It would also seem, according to the doctrine of this court in *Francis vs.*Francis, 18 B. M. 57, the denials in the reply were not sufficient; but without expressly deciding that question, and waiving any expression of opinion as to the decided preponderance of the evidence, the judgment must be reversed for the errors suggested, and the cause remanded, with directions to award a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Western International Gas & Cylinders, Inc. v. H&H Land, L.P.

Appellate case number: 01-21-00514-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-43321

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Western International Gas & Cylinders, Inc. (“Western”), sued appellee, H&H 

Land, L.P. (“H&H), for a judgment declaring the parties’ rights under three commercial leases. 

The trial court granted a summary judgment for H&H. On appeal, this Court reversed and 

remanded for further proceedings. The Court denied en banc reconsideration. 

Western has filed an “Emergency Motion for Injunction and Stay,” in which it complains 

that H&H has since “subvert[ed] this Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of this appeal 

by rushing to terminate the leases at issue and evict Western from the subject property before this

Court issues its mandate.” Western complains that H&H’s actions will render the appeal moot

and that Western cannot enforce this Court’s holding until the mandate issues. Western requests 

additional relief that it must first seek at the trial court level.

Because appellant’s motion demonstrates good cause to expedite issuance of the 

mandate, we grant the motion and direct the clerk of this Court to issue the mandate 

immediately. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /S/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually 

Date: December 9, 2022
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Angela Surgenor","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pGpyWEWDNq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/angela-surgenor\/\">Angela Surgenor<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/angela-surgenor\/embed\/#?secret=pGpyWEWDNq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Angela Surgenor” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pGpyWEWDNq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/surgenor.jpg?w=450","thumbnail_width":450,"thumbnail_height":450}
9575.

#### Stewart *v.*The State.

Decided May 1, 1918.

Accusation of possessing intoxicating liquor; from city court of Dublin—Judge Flynt. January 26, 1918.

*T. E. Hightower,*for plaintiff in error.

*8. P. New, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodwoetii, J.

1. The trial judge did not, err in refusing to charge to the jury as requested by the plaintiff in error.

2. There was evidence sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Earwell, J., concur.*
#### Commonwealth *v.*Samuel Peyton.

Bail— Forfeiture — Sufficiency of Bond.

A bail bond is not sufficient, which fails to stipulate a court in which the defendant is required to appear.

APPEAL FROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1871.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The bail bond of Peyton did not stipulate that he should appear before any other judicial officer or officers as an examining court, than Townsend, nor was any place designated for the holding of the court; and for these reasons, it seems to us the action of the two justices in ordering the forfeiture of the bond, and returning it to the circuit court, for proceedings against the bail was unauthorized, and the demurrer was, therefore, properly sustained.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 63 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 63

To designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the Central Valley 
               project, California, as ``Trinity Lake''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

  Mr. Herger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the Central Valley 
               project, California, as ``Trinity Lake''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF TRINITY LAKE.

    (a) Designation.--The reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the 
Central Valley project, California, and designated as ``Clair Engle 
Lake'' by Public Law 88-662 (78 Stat. 1093) is hereby redesignated as 
``Trinity Lake''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, document, 
record, map, or other paper of the United States to the reservoir 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
``Trinity Lake''.
    (c) Repeal of Earlier Designation.--Public Law 88-662 (78 Stat. 
1093) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION302 OF**

**THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Gerard E. Holthaus, Chief Executive Officer, certify, that:

 

(1)   I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-K of Williams Scotsman International, Inc.;

 

(2)   Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this annual report;

 

(3)   Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

(4)   The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report myconclusions 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 this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;

 

(5)   The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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.

 
| * * | */s/ Gerard E. Holthaus*  |
|----------|---------------------------|
| * * | *Gerard E. Holthaus*      |
| * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |
| * * |
| Date:    | March 17, 2006            |   |
|          |                           |  |  |

 

1

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Television to Air Launch of Next Space Station Resupply Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QpwMGFDIYL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-launch-of-next-space-station-resupply-mission-6\/\">NASA Television to Air Launch of Next Space Station Resupply Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-launch-of-next-space-station-resupply-mission-6\/embed\/#?secret=QpwMGFDIYL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Television to Air Launch of Next Space Station Resupply Mission” — NASA\" data-secret=\"QpwMGFDIYL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/spacexcrs12.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":396}
9138.

#### Echols *v.*Roberts & Longino.

Decided May 17, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of LaGrange—Judge Harwell. July 7, 1917.

*M. TJ. Mooty,*for plaintiff in'error.

*Hall &*Jones, *Boyd A. Lovvorn,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

1. Where a demurrer is sustained, an assignment of error stating that “to the order sustaining said demurrer and striking said answer, the defendant [naming her] then and there excepted, now excepts, and assigns the same as error” is sufficiently definite, where the demurrer itself appears in the record. *Toomey*v. *Read,*133 *Ga.*855 (67 S. E. 100); *McGregor*v. *Third National Bank,*124 *Ga.*557 (53 S. E. 93)*; Walker*V. *Crummey,*18 *Ga. App.*414 (89 S. E. 539); *Tinsley*v. *Gullett Gin Co.,*21 *Ga. App.*512 (94 S. E. 892, 893). The motion to dismiss the hill of exceptions is therefore overruled.

2. Where the defendant is served, and appears and pleads in the original suit, she can not in any case or under any circumstances inquire into the merits of the original judgment, on a writ to revive the judgment. On the general principle of res adjudicata, the defendant is absolutely precluded from going behind the judgment and offering in defense to the scire facias any matter which existed before the rendition of the original judgment and which might have been' presented in the former proceeding. *Weaver*v. *Webb, 3 Ga. App.*726 (60 S. E. 367). The court therefore did hot err in sustaining the demurrer and striking the defendant’s answer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and LuJÉe, J., concur.*