Ex parte Ah Sue
| Decision Date | 28 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 5452. |
| Citation | 270 F. 356 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | Ex parte AH SUE. |
John J Sullivan and Adam Beeler, both of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
Robert C. Saunders, U.S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash.
The petitioner was arrested pursuant to warrant, and was preliminarily examined the 30th day of January, 1919, at the conclusion of which she was asked whether she desired to be represented by counsel, and also advised that she could be released by giving bail in the sum of $1,000. On the same day counsel entered an appearance for the petitioner. Thereafter further testimony was taken. Opportunity was given for the petitioner to be heard and to present any testimony that was desired, and the testimony was finally closed on the 31st of July, 1919. Testimony from a number of witnesses was presented. Voluminous briefs were presented and appeal prosecuted to the Secretary of Labor. The findings of the Commissioner of Immigration at Seattle was affirmed and an order of deportation issued.
The petitioner contends that she was not accorded a fair trial in that she was not timely advised of her right to be represented by counsel, and that there was no competent evidence to support the findings. If there is any competent evidence, however slight, the finding of the department is binding upon the court. I have examined the voluminous record. There is much in this record which is incompetent and irrelevant, and cannot be considered in concluding upon the rights of the petitioner. There is, however, sufficient material, competent testimony in the record, which, if true, shows that the petitioner was practicing prostitution subsequent to her entry into the United States. The weight of the evidence is not for the court.
Ex parte Plastino (D.C.) 236 F. 295, it is strenuously urged, sustains petitioner, and is decisive here. The facts in this case are entirely different from the facts in the Plastino Case. That case was decided, not upon the fact that the privilege of counsel was not granted, but upon the fact that there was no evidence which supported the charge. In that case it was contended the petitioner was not advised of the privilege of counsel, and it was found that the reference to counsel in the record was in different colored ribbon, and it was stated at page 297:
'This was, in my judgment, inserted after the testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Chan Nom Gee
...(C. C. A.) 195 F. 53; Toy Dip v. United States (C. C. A.) 198 F. 603; Guiney v. Bonham (C. C. A.) 261 F. 582, 8 A. L. R. 1282; Ex part Ah Sue (D. C.) 270 F. 356; Ex parte Cahan (D. C.) 42 F.(2d) Many of the above-cited cases were habeas corpus proceedings brought following executive orders ......
-
Ex parte La Matina
...S. 279, 24 S. Ct. 719, 48 L. Ed. 979; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905." See, also, Ex parte Ah Sue (D. C.) 270 F. 356; Chin Shee v. White (C. C. A.) 273 F. The evidence before the immigration inspector established that the applicant is afflicted ......
- Chin Shee v. White
- In re Puget Sound Engineering Co., 6460.