Cockrill v. People of State of California
Decision Date | 11 May 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 182,182 |
Citation | 45 S.Ct. 490,69 L.Ed. 944,268 U.S. 258 |
Parties | COCKRILL et al. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Algernon Crofton, of San Francisco, Cal., and Charles A. Wetmore, Jr., of Marysville, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. F. L. Guerena, of San Francisco, Cal., for the People of the State of California.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the superior court of Sonoma county, Cal., of conspiracy to effect a transfer of real property in violation of the Alien Land Law of that state. Judgment was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal. People v. Cockrill, 62 Cal. App. 22, 216 P. 78. A petition to have the case heard and determined in the Supreme Court of California was denied. The case is here on writ of error. Section 237, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1214).
Under the Alien Land Law, Japanese subjects who are not eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States are not permitted to acquire, use, or control agricultural lands in California. Statutes of California 1921, p. lxxxiii; Treaty of February 21, 1911 (37 Stat. 1504); Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U. S. 225, 44 S. Ct. 21, 68 L. Ed. 278; Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U. S. 313, 44 S. Ct. 112, 68 L. Ed. 318; Frick v. Webb, 263 U. S. 326, 44 S. Ct. 115, 68 L. Ed. 323; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 44 S. Ct. 15, 68 L. Ed. 255. Section 9 provides:
* * *'
Section 10 provides that, if two or more persons conspire to effect a transfer of real property or of any interest therein in violation of the provisions of the statute, they shall be punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
Plaintiff in error Cockrill is an American, and Ikada is a Japanese subject not eligible to citizenship. They entered into an agreement to purchase certain agricultural lands and to take title in the name of Cockrill. Ikada furnished the money which was paid on account of the purchase price, and, upon the making of the contract, took possession of the property. Cockrill had no interest in the land; and the prosecution maintained that he made the contract with the seller and intended to take the deed and hold the land in trust for Ikada. But plaintiffs in error represented that the land was being acquired for and was to be owned by the children of Ikada, who are natives of the United States and entitled to take and hold such lands. See Estate of Tetsubumi Yano, 188 Cal. 645, 649, 206 P. 995. The court included in its charge to the jury the above quoted provisions of section 9. Plaintiffs in error assert that the rule of evidence so declared violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and also the treaty between the United States and Japan.
It is not, and could not reasonably be, suggested that the statute is repugnant to the due process clause. It does not operate to preclude any defense. The inference that payment of the purchase price by one from whom the privilege of acquisition is withheld, and the taking of the land in the name of one of another class, are for the purpose of getting the control of the land for the ineligible alien is not fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable. There is a rational connection between the facts and the intent authorized to be inferred from them. The statute involves no attempt to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It merely creates a presumption which may be overcome by evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. See Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178, 45 S. Ct. 470, 69 L. Ed. —, decided April 27, 1925; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sei Fujii v. State
...U.S. 326, 44 S.Ct. 115, 68 L.Ed. 323, Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 44 S.Ct. 15, 68 L.Ed. 255, or Cockrill v. People of State of California, 268 U.S. 258, 45 S.Ct. 490, 69 L.Ed. 944, it has reversed this court on the only recent cases which have considered the problem here involved. Fu......
-
Oyama v. State of California
...as between strangers taking from the same transferors, there appears to be none. It is for this reason that Cockrill v. California, 1925, 268 U.S. 258, 45 S.Ct. 490, 49 L.Ed. 944, does not support the State's position. In that case an ineligible alien paid for land and had title put in a st......
-
Vigeant v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
...of alleged violation of the equal protection clause, and in others statutes have been refused enforcement. Cockrill v. California, 268 U. S. 258, 262, 45 S. Ct. 490, 69 L. Ed. 944;Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U. S. 171, 181, 44 S. Ct. 280, 68 L. Ed. 623. They need not be reviewed. The prin......
-
Hsieh v. Civil Service Commission of City of Seattle
...of both constitutions do not forbid all distinctions in state law between citizens and resident aliens. Cockrill v. California, 268 U.S. 258, 45 S.Ct. 490, 69 L.Ed. 944 (1925); Terrace v. Thompson, supra. Thus, where the entry of certain aliens would have been lawful, a state statute prohib......
-
Amending Indictments in Colorado: Rule 6.8, Colo. R. Crim. P
...to show the commission of a public offense apparently may not be added. See People v. Cockrill, 62 Cal.App. 22, 216 P. 78 (1923), aff'd. 268 U.S. 258; People v. Joseph, 21 Cal.App.2d 336, 69 P.2d 465 (1937); Mitchell v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App. 734, 245 P. 1109 (1926); cf. Evans v. Commo......