Stretton v. Rudy
| Decision Date | 08 March 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,954. |
| Citation | 176 F. 727 |
| Parties | STRETTON, U.S. Immigrant Inspector, v. RUDY. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charlton R. Beattie, for appellant.
H. L Landfried, for appellee.
Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment on habeas corpus discharging Mrs Fanny Rudy from the custody of the United States immigrant inspector.
Mrs Rudy, describing herself as a citizen of the United States in her petition addressed to the Circuit Court, among other things not necessary to recite, alleged that she had been a resident of the United States for the past seven years, and that she was being illegally held and detained in the House of the Good Shepherd in the city of New Orleans under an alleged violation of Act Feb. 20, 1907, c. 1134, Sec. 3, 34 Stat. 899 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 450); that at first she was given to understand that she was detained as a witness in some (not mentioned) criminal case; that she had been deceived while so held into making a statement on which was predicated an order for her deportation from the United States under the aforementioned section 3 of the act of July 1, 1907, and she charges the immigration officer with deceit and misrepresentation, and a violation of rule 35 of the Immigration Bureau of Commerce and Labor; that she had been denied the opportunity to show cause why she should not be deported; that she was not represented by counsel; and that she had been denied the right to inspect the evidence, or any part of it, upon which the Secretary of Commerce and Labor had acted in ordering her arrest and deportation, and had been denied the right to give evidence.
Her petition was sworn to by her attorney, and thereupon a writ of habeas corpus was issued.
Peter H. Stretton, immigration inspector, made respondent, filed an answer to the petition, in which he denied all the allegations to the petition not therein admitted, and states:
'That he is the inspector in charge of immigration at the port of New Orleans, and as such a warrant for the arrest of plaintiff was issued to him under date of February 3, 1909, by the Department of Commerce and Labor, commanding him to arrest the said Fanny Rudy, born Fanny Rothenburg, as an alien and a member of one of the excluded classes, in that she is a prostitute, and that she was such at the time of her entry into the United States, and that her entry into the said United States was for the purpose of prostitution and for immoral purposes, in violation of the act of February 20, 1907, she having landed at the port of New York, ex steamer Velasco, on the 6th day of May, 1908, and by virtue of said warrant for arrest your respondent held the said Fanny Rudy in custody; that your respondent, before arresting the said Fanny Rudy, took her testimony, and informed her that she had the right to be represented by counsel and to furnish bond, all this being done in the presence of D. Downing, inspector and stenographer, but that she declared she would not avail herself of counsel.
Your respondent further states that the proceedings were according to law and regular, and her testimony was transmitted to the Department of Commerce and Labor by your respondent, and that the said Department of Commerce and Labor did on the 11th day of February, 1909, decree that the said Fanny Rudy should be held for deportation, and deported to the country from whence she came, as being an alien prostitute at the time of her entry in the United States, and having been found practicing prostitution within a period of three years subsequent to her entry into this country, and accordingly issued on the 11th day of February, 1909, an order of deportation for the deportation of the said Fanny Rudy, born Fanny Rothenburg, and that by virtue of the said original warrant of arrest, and the said order of deportation, your respondent, Peter H. Stretton, inspector as aforesaid, holds the said Fanny Rudy in custody.
'Further answering, your respondent, Peter H. Stretton, states that pending this order of deportation, it became necessary to hold and detain the said Fanny Rudy as a material witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Sevy
... ... the detention of the prisoner he will be discharged." ... The ... return imports verity until impeached, Stretton v ... Rudy , 5 Cir., 176 F. 727, 101 C. C. A. 223. It is ... presumed to be true until the contrary is shown by the ... evidence or its effects ... ...
-
Brewster v. Villa, 8419.
...warrant for deportation issued after a fair and legal hearing. Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 11 S.Ct. 13, 34 L.Ed. 620; Stretton v. Rudy (C.C.A.) 176 F. 727. He was nevertheless entitled to a judicial trial of his contention that he is a United States citizen, for the Secretary of La......
-
United States v. Day
...since the return is conclusive unless traversed. Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 94, 11 S. Ct. 13, 34 L. Ed. 620; Stretton v. Rudy, 176 F. 727 (C. C. A. 5). However, since the parties treated the return as though it had been impeached by a traverse, and the court took evidence on that......
-
Graham v. Carr, 9443.
...not being traversed, was conclusive on the court. Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 94, 11 S.Ct. 13, 34 L.Ed. 620; Stretton v. Rudy, 5 Cir., 176 F. 727, 730; United States v. Day, 2 Cir., 20 F.2d 302, 303. There being no detention of appellant by appellee, the writ was properly Order aff......