Caranica v. Nagle

• Citation: 23 F.2d 545
• Decision Date: 13 February 1928
• Docket Number: No. 5178.,5178.
• Parties: CARANICA v. NAGLE, Commissioner of Immigration.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

23 F.2d 545 (1928)

CARANICA v. NAGLE, Commissioner of Immigration.

No. 5178.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

January 9, 1928.

Rehearing Denied February 13, 1928.

Clifford A. Russell and Donald McKisick, both of Sacramento, Cal., for appellant.

George J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

The Secretary of Labor issued a warrant directing the deportation of the appellant, an alien, upon the ground that he was found in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (Comp. St. § 4289¼a et seq.), in that he was found connected with the management of a house of prostitution and sharing in and deriving benefit from the earnings of a prostitute. To the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below the appellee demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and the petition denied. From that order the appellant appeals.

The petition alleged that the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing in that (1) he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses Harris and Nullett; (2) that the testimony of Inspector Howell was admitted to show that the petitioner, under the name of Walker, had been convicted in Marysville of violation of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA), which was subsequently shown to be untrue; (3) that Inspector Farley had filed a report that certain persons in Vallejo had given detrimental testimony as to the character of the appellant, and had refused to disclose the names of his informants; (4) that the said witness Howell testified to statements made by one Bessie Cohn, but she was not subpœnaed to attend the hearing, nor was the appellant given an opportunity to cross-examine her; and (5) that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the appellant had committed any offense against the immigration statutes of the United States.

By consent of the parties the immigration records were filed and considered as part of the original petition. It appears therefrom that the appellant was arrested at 216½ C street, Marysville, Cal., a place which was shown to be a notorious open house of prostitution. He was found occupying a room with a connecting door to the bedroom occupied by Mary Harris, who managed the establishment. He at first persisted in denying that he occupied that room, but he later admitted it. In his possession in that room were several canceled checks, which had been drawn in favor of Mary Harris; also two receipts for money paid by her to the former manager for the purchase of the establishment. The petition alleged that these represented loans to Mary Harris, and the appellant offered in evidence a chattel mortgage to sustain that statement; but the testimony was not believed, and in the inspector's summary of the case for the Secretary it was said: "I believe the record clearly shows that the alien was the actual owner and operator of the house of prostitution involved, and that the mortgage offered in evidence by the defense is nothing more than a common subterfuge resorted to by persons engaged in such enterprises, for the purpose of concealing their actual interest in such houses of prostitution."

As to the first specification, that the hearing was unfair, in that the appellant was...