{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018421052631578946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007894736842105263, 'mean_word_length': 4.5144927536231885, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval

There is a story of a Vermont justice of the peace before whom a suit was brought by one farmer against another for breaking a chum. The justice took time to consider, and then said that he had looked through the statutes and could find nothing about chums, and gave judgment for the defendant. The same state of mind is shown in all our common digests and textbooks. Applications of rudimentary rules of contract or tort are tucked away under the head of Railroads or Telegraphs or go to swell treatises on historical subdivisions, such as Shipping or Equity, or are gathered under the arbitrary title which is thought likely to appeal to the practical mind, such as Mercantile law. (Holmes 1897, p. 59.)