The very large test of Fletcherism as a temperance expedient hereinbefore referred to was entirely accidental.
|
|
This section provided that nothing contained hereinbefore in this Act was to be taken to repeal or alter the Brawling Act 1553, the Act of Uniformity 1558 or section 18 of the Toleration Act 1688. This section was repealed by section 1 of, and Part II of the Schedule to, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.
|
|
As with many Buddy cartoons, sources differ on the release date of Buddy the Dentist. This article's placement is in accord with the article Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1929-1939), which proposes a different order and date than Leonard Maltin's Of Mice and Magic, hereinbefore cited. For more on such conflicts, see the relevant section of the article on Buddy's Circus.
|
|
It is not normally visibly rendered as a character. U+17D3 was originally intended for use in writing lunar dates, but its use is now discouraged (see the Khmer Symbols block hereafter). The next seven characters are the punctuation marks listed hereinbefore; these are followed by the riel currency symbol, a rare sign corresponding to the Sanskrit avagraha, and a mostly obsolete version of the vĭréam diacritic.
|
|
"The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or hereinafter otherwise provided, shall have the same force and effect in Porto Rico as in the United States ...". Following the 1950 and 1952 legislation, only two district court decisions have held that a particular federal law, which does not specifically exclude or treat Puerto Rico differently, is inapplicable to Puerto Rico.The two are: (1)Refusing to apply the Federal Firearms Act to transactions solely within Puerto Rico: United States v. Rios, 140 F. Supp.
|
|
In the end the bill > received royal assent on July 12, 1843 intituled "An Act to declare taht > certain persons therein mentioned are not children of the Most Honourable > George Ferrars, Marquis Townshend" (6 & 7 Vict c. 35) and declaring that > "the said several children of the said Sarah Gardner, Marchioness Townshend, > hereinbefore respectively mentioned, are not nor were, nor shall they or any > of them, be taken to be or be deemed the lawful issue of the said George > Ferrars Marquis Townshend" (one child, having no legal guardian, was > excepted from the provisions). (Based on Frederick Clifford, A History of > Private Bill Legislation, 1885, vol. 1 p.
|
|
The ICC set rates for rail transport, and issued an order requiring all rail companies who charged more than the set rates to cease operations. The ICC then went to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to seek a legal injunction requiring the Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway to comply with the order. The 6th circuit sent a certified question to the US Supreme Court, asking: > Had the interstate commerce commission jurisdictional power to make the > order hereinbefore set forth; all proceedings preceding said order being due > and regular, so far as procedure is concerned? Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that the ICC had no such power.
|
|
Was the royal > prerogative not infringed? What about ordinary courts?). In the end the bill > received royal assent on July 12, 1843 entitled "An Act to declare that > certain persons therein mentioned are not children of the Most Honourable > George Ferrars, Marquis Townshend" (6 & 7 Vict c. 35) and declaring that > "the said several children of the said Sarah Gardner, Marchioness Townshend, > hereinbefore respectively mentioned, are not nor were, nor shall they or any > of them, be taken to be or be deemed the lawful issue of the said George > Ferrars Marquis Townshend" (According to Francois Velde, one child, being a > minor and having no legal guardian, was exempted from the act's provisions).
|
|
While First Nations often initiated treaties to protect their rights to land in anticipation of or in direct response to disruptive White settlement, the Crown saw them as a way to ensure sovereignty over the land from a people who only had sovereignty as a "personal and usufructuary right, dependent upon the good will of the Sovereign" in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. "At the time of the discovery of America, and long after, it was an accepted rule that heathen and infidel nations were perpetual enemies, and that the Christian prince or people first discovering and taking possession of the country became its absolute proprietor, and could deal with the lands as such". The Calder v British Columbia (AG) case in 1973 was the first case in Canadian law that acknowledged "a declaration that the aboriginal title, otherwise known as the Indian title, of the plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory hereinbefore described, has never been lawfully extinguished". This ruling has led to more Aboriginal land claim negotiations, and overhauled much of the process of addressing Aboriginal title to land that existed prior to colonization and confederation, and whether that title had been extinguished.
|
|