alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 15,629.

#### *Coon v. Cronk.*

*Practice.*— Conflict *of Evidence.*— The mere weakness or conflict of evidence will not justify the setting aside of the finding of the trial court. There must he an entire want of evidence on some material point.

From the Hancock Circuit Court.

*J. A. New*and *A. M. New,*for appellant.

*E. Marsh*and *W. W. Cook,*for appellee.

McBride, J.

The only question argued by counsel for *45the appellant is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the circuit court.

Filed March 31, 1892.

The suit was by the appellant for the partition of certain land in which he claimed an interest under the will of his father. The appellee claimed that there had been a parol partition of the lands belonging to the father’s estate, in which the appellant had participated ; that a written contract was made evidencing the terms of the partition, and that deeds were subsequently executed confirming it; that possession was taken, and thereafter held under the partition thus made; and that, by the terms of such partition, the appellant parted with his interest in the lands in controversy.

There was evidence tending to support the claims of the appellee. Neither the written contract nor the deeds were in evidence. There was evidence, however, admitted apparently without objection, tending to show the execution of both. The evidence is very far from being satisfactory.

It can not be said, however, that there was no evidence tending to support the finding of the court.

Mere weakness of evidence will not justify us in setting aside the finding. There must be an entii’e want of evidence on some material point. Here the evidence, while apparently very weak, was conflicting. The trial court was charged with the duty of weighing the evidence and determining the conflict.

Our rules forbid that we should disturb the conclusion thus reached.

Judgment affirmed.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 25 , 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 14 - 00209 - CV IN RE KENNETH HALL , Relator Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09 - 52103 - SPM



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang Before the Court is relator’s post

- conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus complaining that he was convicted based on evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest and from an unconstitutional search and seizure and that he was denied assistance of counsel. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Court lacks jurisdiction over post

- conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); In re Hampton , No. 05

- 07

- 00440

- CV, 2007 WL 1168446 at *1 (Tex. App.

– Dallas Apr. 20 , 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for writ of habeas corpus
.

140209F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS LANG JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jesse Lerman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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: 05/17/10                          /s/ Jesse Lerman
                                        ----------------
                                        Jesse Lerman
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
H. R. 4807

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 140 Sacramento Street in Rio Vista, California, as the ‘‘Adam G. Kinser Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

140 Sacramento Street in Rio Vista, California, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Adam G. Kinser Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Adam G.

Kinser Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
11482.

#### McKINNEY *v.*THE STATE.

Decided June 15, 1920.

In view of the improper remark of the solicitor-general in the hearing of the jury, in a colloquy with the defendant’s counsel, in which, referring to a witness for the State who afterwards gave testimony favorable to the defendant, he said that he was not going to depend upon her testimony, that she was “not going to swear the truth,” which statement was immediately objected to by the defendant’s counsel and was the ground of a motion for a mistrial, made after the jury had retired to consider the case, the trial' judge should have declared a mistrial or should have recalled the jury and instructed them not to consider the remark; and his failure to do so is ground for a new trial. It was not sufficient that the judge, in response to the objection made at the time of the remark, said to the defendant’s counsel, in the presence and hearing of the jury, “ Well, the jury will not be influenced by any remarks between the solicitor and counsel and the court on questions, of evidence.”

Conviction of shooting at another; from Fulton superior court — Judge Humphries. April 3, 1920.

*B. H. & Harvey Hill,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

The defendant was being tried for shooting his wife with intent to murder her. The solicitor-general put up the wife, who testified that the shooting was an accident. Before introducing the witness, however, the solicitor-general, in a colloquy with the defendant’s counsel, in the presence and hearing of the jury, stated: “Pm not going to depend upon the testimony of the wife; she’s not going to swear the truth about it.” Counsel for the defendant objected to this statement, whereupon the court, addressing defendant’s counsel, said: “Well, the jury will not be *405influenced by any-remarks between the solicitor and counsel and the court on questions of evidence.” Subsequently, after argument of counsel and after the court had charged the jury and while the jury were considering the ease, counsel for the defendant moved for a mistrial because of the solicitor-general’s remark. This motion was overruled. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of shooting at another.

Under the circumstances stated, the court should either have declared a mistrial of the case, or have recalled the jury and expressly instructed them not to consider the improper' remarks of the solicitor-general, and the failure so to do necessitates another trial of the case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
| Year      Ended December 31                         | 2009    | 2008    | 2007    | 2006    | 2005    |
|-----------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Millions                                            |    |    |    |    |    |
|                                                |    |    |    |    |    |
| Earnings      as defined:                           |    |    |    |    |    |
| Pretax      Income Before Non-Controlling Interest  | $91.5   | $126.4  | $137.2  | $128.2  | $19.8   |
| Add:      Fixed Charges                             | 38.3    | 30.3    | 26.6    | 27.7    | 27.3    |
| Less:  Non-Controlling      Interest (a)  | – | – | – | – | – |
| Undistributed      Income from Less than 50 percent |    |    |    |    |    |
| Owned      Equity Investment                        | 3.7     | 3.8     | 3.3     | 2.3     | – |
| Earnings      as defined:                           | 126.1   | 152.9   | 160.5   | 153.6   | 47.1    |
| Fixed      Charges:                                 |    |    |    |    |    |
| Interest      on Long-Term Debt                     | 34.2    | 27.4    | 23.2    | 22.8    | 23.4    |
| Other      Interest Charges                         | 1.6     | 0.4     | 1.5     | 2.9     | 1.1     |
| Interest      Component of All Rentals (b)          | 2.5     | 2.5     | 1.9     | 2.0     | 2.8     |
| Total      Fixed Charges                            | 38.3    | 30.3    | 26.6    | 27.7    | 27.3    |
| Ratio      of Earnings to Fixed Charges             | 3.29    | 5.05    | 6.03    | 5.55    | 1.73    |

----
Exhibit
32 .2





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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lowell W. Giffhorn,
Chief Financial 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:





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




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





Dated: August 10, 2009
              /s/LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell
      W. GiffhornChief
      Financial Officer




EX-5
#### The Jeffersonville Railroad Company *v.*Weinman.

Practice.—Costs.—Where the defendant in an action settles with the plaintiff, by payment, without any agreement as to costs, the defendant is liable for costs, at least to the date of the settlement.

APPEAL from the Floyd Circuit Court.

Pettit, J.

The appellee sued appellant to recover dam ages done to his property, occasioned by the construction of her road in the city of New Albany.

After various motions, demurrers, answers, rulings, exceptions, and continuances, which, for the purposes of this cause, need not be further noticed, through the instrumentality of the appellant and the city of New Albany (the company paying to the city ten thousand dollars for the *232benefit of the appellee and others who had like suits pending), and *“in*consideration of seven hundred and thirty-seven dollars and ten cents paid by the city of New Albany and The Jeffersonville, Madison, and Indianapolis Railroad Company,” the appellee gave a release to the city and the appellant for all damages occasioned by the construction of said road, dated May 25th, 1870, and at the next term moved the court to dismiss the cause, at the costs of appellant. To this the appellant objected, and by agreement of the parties, evidence, written and oral, was given to the court to enable it to determine how the case should be dismissed. On the evidence, the court dismissed the cause, at the costs of the appellant up to the 25th day of May, 1870 (the date of the release), and at the costs of the appellee after that date.

Exception was taken, and this ruling is assigned for error, a motion for a new trial on this point only having been made and overruled. The correctness of this ruling is the *only*question before us, all others having been cut off or disposed of by the dismissal of the case. We see no reason for distinguishing this from an ordinary cause where the issue is tried *bf*the court. The evidence is conflicting and not clear, as to what was the agreement, expectation, or understanding of the parties, and, under a long-settled rule of this court, we cannot reverse. The reasons of the rule have so often been given that we need not repeat them. It is admitted in appellant’s brief, “that if A. brings suit against B. for an alleged debt or demand, and after suit brought, B. should settle with A. for his alleged debt or demand, without any agreement as to the costs of suit, then, in such a case, and upon such a state of facts, B. should pay the costs of suit accrued, and the suit, if dismissed, should be dismissed at his costs.”

We think that the court, from the evidence, might well and properly have found that the appellant, through its officers, agents, and the city of New Albany, settled with the *233appellee, and that the ruling was right, on the hypothesis of . the above admission.

*G. V. Howk, W. W. Tidey,*and *C. D. Howk,*for appellant.

The judgment below is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.
Exhibit 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Cox Technologies, Inc.
Belmont, North Carolina

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (File No.
333-52738) on Form S-8 of Cox Technologies, Inc. of our report dated July 24,
2001, relating the consolidated balance sheet of Cox Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of April 30, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and all
related schedules, which report appears in the April 30, 2001 annual report on
Form 10-K of Cox Technologies, Inc.



/s/ Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.

Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.
Gastonia, North Carolina
July 24, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4817 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4817

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary encroachment on lands 
of the Union Pacific Railroad Company in Tipton, California, which were 
 originally conveyed by the United States as part of the right-of-way 
      granted for the construction of transcontinental railroads.

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

SECTION 1. RELEASE OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN CERTAIN RAILROAD GRANT 
              LANDS IN TIPTON, CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Property Defined.--In this section, the term ``property'' means 
that portion of the existing building located at 615 North Burnett Road 
in Tipton, California, which encroaches upon land that, subject to a 
reversionary interest, was conveyed by the United States pursuant to 
the Act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292).
    (b) Release of Interests in Property.--There is hereby released, 
without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
States in and to the surface portion of the property. The United States 
retains any subsurface mineral rights held by the United States as of 
the date of the enactment of this Act associated with the property.
    (c) Instrument of Release.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 
deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of 
interests made by subsection (b).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 4, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
The Board of Directors
Chancellor Media Corporation of Los Angeles:
 
We consent to the use of our report included herein and to the reference to our
firm under the heading "Experts."
 
                                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 
St. Petersburg, Florida
November 5, 1998
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS, L.P. III
                             (A Limited Partnership)


                                 EXHIBIT [32.1]

                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 Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits L.P. III (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Principal, hereby certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     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
     Partnership.


                                                /s/Jenny Netzer
                                                Jenny Netzer
                                                Executive Vice President
                                                MMA Financial, LLC

                                                Date:  August 14, 2003










A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                           AMERICAN MIDLAND CORPORATION
                                              FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                                            ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the condensed
consolidated finacial statements for the year December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND>
       
<CAPTION>

<S>                           <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               dec-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                  jan-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                    dec-31-1996 
<CASH>                          8,000
<SECURITIES>                    0 
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                8,000
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,634,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           464,000
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        57,000
<OTHER-SE>                      2,266,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,634,000
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 91,000
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             91,000
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0 
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    91,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**




In
      connection with the filing with the United States Securities and Exchange
      Commission of BBJ Environmental Technologies, Inc.’s (the “Company”) Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”), I,
      Robert G. Baker, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify in my capacity as an officer of the Company, that:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) 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.




The
      above
      certification is given as of the date of the Report and is limited to the
      periods covered by the Report.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on November
      2005




By:
            /s/
                Robert G. BakerRobert
                G. Baker,Interim
                Chief Financial Officer





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