In re Manning
| Citation | 209 F. 499 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1913 |
| Docket Number | 825. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | In re MANNING. |
In the matter of the petition of Patrick Joseph Manning to be admitted a citizen of the United States. Petition dismissed.
Geo. A Crutchfield, of San Francisco, Cal., Chief Naturalization examiner.
Daniel O'Connell, of San Francisco, Cal., for applicant.
The petition of Patrick Joseph Manning for naturalization declares that he has resided in the United States for over five years, to wit, since June 2, 1900, and in the state of California for over one year, to wit, since April 10, 1910. The petition was filed June 12, 1913, and shows, further that petitioner applied for naturalization to the superior court of the state of California in and for the county of San Mateo, on November 8, 1912, but that said petition was denied, because it was not verified by two witnesses covering full period of the residence in the state, and the cause of such denial has since been cured or removed.
The affidavit of the witnesses to the present petition shows that they know that petitioner has resided in the United States for at least 2 years, 10 months, and 21 days, and in the state of California for the same period of time. This affidavit accompanies the petition and was made on June 12 1913. Petitioner's verified petition shows that at that time he had resided in the state for 3 years, 2 months, and 2 days, or nearly 4 months longer than the period covered by the verification of his witnesses.
The Naturalization Act provides that the petition shall be verified by two witnesses, who shall state that they have personally known the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period of at least five years continuously, and of the state, territory, or district in which the application is made for a period of at least one year, immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition. Manifestly, if this were the only provision of the act bearing on this question, the affidavit of the witnesses herein would be insufficient, as it does not show a residence of petitioner in the United States for a period of five years. Section 10 of the act (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 533), however, declares:
'That in case the petitioner has not resided in the state, territory or district for a period of five years continuously and immediately preceding the filing of his petition, he may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Vasicek
... ... 1016; In re Wolf (C.C.) 188 F ... 519); that such witnesses must possess personal knowledge of ... the facts testified to (In re Kornstein, supra); that they ... must have known the petitioner for the statutory period ... (In re Toomey (Sup.) 111 N.Y.Supp. 600; In re ... Manning (D.C.) 209 F. 499; United States v ... Gulliksen, 244 F. 727, 157 C.C.A. 175), that they are ... credible (In re Kornstein, supra); that they actually ... possessed personal knowledge of the facts testified to (In re ... Kornstein, supra); that the petitioner is attached to the ... principles ... ...
-
In re Hartman
... ... is a bar to another action upon the same facts determined in ... the prior proceedings; and it cites the following ... authorities: In re Centi (D.C.) 217 F. 833; In ... re Guliano (D.C.) 156 F. 420; In re Bodek ... (C.C.) 63 F. 813; In re Manning (D.C.) 209 F ... 499, and other cases ... That a ... judgment or decree admitting an alien to citizenship may be ... reviewed upon appeal or writ of error from a District Court ... of the United States, at least, granting the same, is ... recognized by the Court of Appeals of this ... ...
-
In re Centi
...period. In re Spencer, Fed. Cas. No. 13,234; In re Trum, 199 F. 361; In re Folkstad (D.C.) 199 F. 363; In re Guliano, 156 F. 420; In re Manning, 209 F. 499. To otherwise would seem to stamp former adjudications wherein an alien has been denied naturalization as a nullity, and an alien might......
- In re Killian Mfg. Co.