fermer la maison – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      10 Results   7 Domains
  www.epo.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
L'un des avantages majeurs était la facilité avec laquelle on pouvait fermer une porte ou une fenêtre, garantissant qu'une personne autre qu'un homme de forte carrure pouvait fermer la maison en cas de besoin.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine epo.org as primary domain
By the time Europeans colonised America, the hinge had become widespread. A considerable perk was the ease with which a door, lid or window could be shut, ensuring that someone other than a burly man could close off the house if need be.
  fablab-siegen.de  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
38. il sortira de la maison, et, quand il sera à la porte, il fera fermer la maison pour sept jours.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine bibliatodo.com as primary domain
39. And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
  www.urantia.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
154:1.2 (1717.5) Le vendredi de cette semaine, les dirigeants de la synagogue de Capharnaüm prirent des mesures officielles pour fermer la maison de Dieu à Jésus et à tous ses partisans. Cette action fut entreprise à l’instigation des pharisiens de Jérusalem.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine urantia.org as primary domain
154:2.2 (1718.3) This same Sunday morning, Jesus declared a week’s holiday, urging all of his disciples to return to their homes or friends to rest their troubled souls and speak words of encouragement to their loved ones. He said: “Go to your several places to play or fish while you pray for the extension of the kingdom.”
  2 Hits csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Bien au contraire, car ils avaient une caisse de bière. Ils ont certainement vu les Laframboise fermer la maison et ils ont eu l'occasion de commettre l'introduction par effraction. Le mensonge de M. Dura concernant la présence des intimés dans le jardin des Grummett a pu amener les policiers à croire qu'il tentait de leur dissimuler quelque chose.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
Turning now to the test which should have been applied by the courts below, I find that it was reasonable for the officers to believe that the break-in occurred at 10:00 p.m., when the yard lights went out.  The burglars would have had to turn the lights off in order not to be seen by the neighbours.  The other circumstances revealed by the investigation, while insufficient to convict the respondents, did however tend to make them suspects.  When last seen by the Laframboises at 8:00 p.m., there was no indication that the youths were leaving.  To the contrary, they had a case of beer with them.  Certainly, the youths had seen the Laframboises close the house and had the opportunity to commit the break-in.  Mr. Dura's lie with respect to the presence of the respondents in the Grummetts' back yard could lead the officers to believe that he was trying to hide something from them.  It could have been something Mr. Dura himself had done, but in the absence of any other indication, the officers were entitled to believe that it was as likely that Mr. Dura tried to conceal something the respondents had done.  The conversation between one of the youths and Mr. Laframboise, the previous evening, with respect to putting the dog in the garage, indicated that the respondents were curious whether the dog was left in the house to guard it.  Such a curiosity would naturally tend to confirm the officers' suspicion.  It is necessary to emphasize that all these circumstances were analyzed by officers with a combined experience of 39 years on the force.  In all likelihood, this was not the first break-in they were called upon to investigate.  While the evidence is not explicit on this point, given their knowledge of the neighbourhood and appreciation of the fact that some liquor was stolen and other circumstances of the break-in, it may have been natural for them to suspect inexperienced neighbourhood youths instead of sophisticated out-of-town burglars.  I agree that this evidence falls short of establishing the respondents' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but in my view, it could very well have led a reasonable person to believe it was likely that the respondents committed the break-in.
  2 Hits scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Bien au contraire, car ils avaient une caisse de bière. Ils ont certainement vu les Laframboise fermer la maison et ils ont eu l'occasion de commettre l'introduction par effraction. Le mensonge de M. Dura concernant la présence des intimés dans le jardin des Grummett a pu amener les policiers à croire qu'il tentait de leur dissimuler quelque chose.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
Turning now to the test which should have been applied by the courts below, I find that it was reasonable for the officers to believe that the break-in occurred at 10:00 p.m., when the yard lights went out.  The burglars would have had to turn the lights off in order not to be seen by the neighbours.  The other circumstances revealed by the investigation, while insufficient to convict the respondents, did however tend to make them suspects.  When last seen by the Laframboises at 8:00 p.m., there was no indication that the youths were leaving.  To the contrary, they had a case of beer with them.  Certainly, the youths had seen the Laframboises close the house and had the opportunity to commit the break-in.  Mr. Dura's lie with respect to the presence of the respondents in the Grummetts' back yard could lead the officers to believe that he was trying to hide something from them.  It could have been something Mr. Dura himself had done, but in the absence of any other indication, the officers were entitled to believe that it was as likely that Mr. Dura tried to conceal something the respondents had done.  The conversation between one of the youths and Mr. Laframboise, the previous evening, with respect to putting the dog in the garage, indicated that the respondents were curious whether the dog was left in the house to guard it.  Such a curiosity would naturally tend to confirm the officers' suspicion.  It is necessary to emphasize that all these circumstances were analyzed by officers with a combined experience of 39 years on the force.  In all likelihood, this was not the first break-in they were called upon to investigate.  While the evidence is not explicit on this point, given their knowledge of the neighbourhood and appreciation of the fact that some liquor was stolen and other circumstances of the break-in, it may have been natural for them to suspect inexperienced neighbourhood youths instead of sophisticated out-of-town burglars.  I agree that this evidence falls short of establishing the respondents' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but in my view, it could very well have led a reasonable person to believe it was likely that the respondents committed the break-in.