Missouri, Kansas & Texas railway company, et al., plaintiffs vs. J.E. Love et al., defendants ... [and others] General brief upon common questions on behalf of all plaintiffs ... S.T. Bledsoe, Cottingham & Hayes, C.O. Blake ... [and others] attorneys for plaintiffs.

At head of title: In the District court of the United states for the western district of Oklahoma. "Questions involved ... are the validity of the two-cent passenger fare provision of the Oklahoma

An authentic report of the testimony in a cause at issue in the Court of Chancery of the State of New Jersey, between Thomas L. Shotwell, complainant, and Joseph Hendrickson and Stacy Decow, defendants : taken pursuant to the rules of the court /

"Foster's report"--Spine.

Decision of the Court of chancery of the state of New Jersey, in a cause between Thomas L. Shotwell, complainant, and Joseph Hendrickson and Stacy Decow, defendants. Also the opinion of the Supreme court of the state of New York, in a cause in which James Field was plaintiff, and Charles Field, defendant.

Dispute concerning a school fund of the Society of Friends, which was claimed by both Orthodox and Hicksite factions.

The Society of Friends vindicated: being the arguments of the counsel of Joseph Hendrickson, in a cause decided in the Court of chancery of the state of New Jersey, between Thomas L. Shotwell, complainant, and Joseph Hendrickson and Stacy Decow, defendants.

Published 1833 under title: The arguments of the counsel of Joseph Hendrickson.

Arthur F. Naylor, et als., Defendants-Respondents : civil action on appeal from final judgment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division - Burlington County. Sat below: Goldmann, J. S. C. Appendix to respondents' brief.

At head of title: Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division - Docket no. A-215-53.

Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner and others Defendants-Appellees-Petitioners v. George P. Davis, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent : brief for Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent : Edward F. McClennen, Jacob J. Kaplan for the respondent.

At head of title: Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1936, no. 910.

Pittsburg Vein Operators' Association, complainant, vs. the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad Company, and B.A. Worthington, receiver of the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad Company, defendants. Memorandum respecting allocation of railroad expenses.

Before the Interstate Commerce Commission, no. 4116-1.

In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New-York. Before the Honorable Samuel Nelson and the Honorable Samuel Blatchford. May 5, 1870. James Fisk, Jr., vs. the Union Pacific Railroad Company and others ... Argument of Samuel J. Tilden for defendants, in reply to Mr. Stoughton and Mr. Field.

Mode of access: Internet.

Record. Kentucky, Kenton circuit court. Covington & Lexington railroad co., plaintiff, against in equity. James Winslow, trustee, etc., R.B. Bowler's heirs, and others, defendants.

Mode of access: Internet.

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, complaintants, vs. Wm. H. Tompkins, W.T. LaFollette and Alexander Kirkpatrick, constituting the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the state of South Dakota, et al., defendants. Pleadings and proofs.

Mode of access: Internet.

United States of America, plaintiff, vs. Parents Magazine Enterprises, inc. and A. C. McClurg & Co., defendants. Transcript of proceedings

"No. 62 C 1453"

In the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Northern Division, before Hon. Benjamin F. Bledsoe, United States District Judge : United States of America, plaintiff, vs. Southern Pacific Company, et al., Defendants. In Equity No.46 Civil, A-16, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-28.

Cover title.

In Equity no. 169. In the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California : the Equitable Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, Complainant, against Western Pacific Railway Company, Chester L. Hovey, as Receiver of Boca and Loyalton Railroad Company, and Mercantile Trust Company of San Francisco, as Trustee, Defendants, and Central Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, Intervening Defendant and Cross-complainant.

[V.1.] Proceedings on Master's sale -- [v.2.] Decree of forclosure and sale -- [v.3.] Ancillary decree of foreclosure and sale.

Corrected opinion of Harold R. Medina, United States circuit judge in United States of America, plaintiff v. Henry S. Morgan, Harold Stanley, et al., doing business as Morgan Stanley & Co., et al., defendants. Filed, February 4, 1954. [Civil action no. 43.-757.]

Mode of access: Internet.

Non-English-speaking defendants in the magistrates court:a comparative study of face-to-face and prison video link interpreter-mediated hearings in England

This study compares interpreter-mediated face-to-face Magistrates Court hearings with those conducted through prison video link in which interpreters are located in court and non- English-speaking defendants in prison. It seeks to examine the impact that the presence of video link has on court actors in terms of interaction and behaviour. The data comprises 11 audio-recordings of face-to-face hearings, 10 recordings of prison video link hearings, semistructured interviews with 27 court actors, and ethnographic observation of hearings as viewed by defendants in Wormwood Scrubs prison in London. The over-arching theme is the pervasive influence of the ecology of the courtroom upon all court actors in interpretermediated hearings and thus on the communication process. Close analysis of the court transcripts shows that their relative proximity to one another can be a determinant of status, interpreting role, mode and volume. The very few legal protocols which apply to interpretermediated cases (acknowledging and ratifying the interpreter, for example), are often forgotten or dispensed with. Court interpreters lack proper training in the specific challenges of court interpreting, whether they are co-present with the defendant or not. Other court actors often misunderstand the interpreter’s role. This has probably come about because courts have adjusted their perceptions of what they think interpreters are supposed to do based on their own experiences of working with them, and have gradually come to accept poor practice (the inability to perform simultaneous interpreting, for example) as the norm. In video link courts, mismatches of sound and image due to court clerks’ failure to adequately track current speakers, poor image and sound quality and the fact that non-English-speaking defendants in pre-and post-court consultations can see and hear interpreters but not their defence advocates are just some of the additional layers of disadvantage and confusion already suffered by non- English-speaking defendants. These factors make it less likely that justice will be done.