In re Yee Gee
| Citation | 83 F. 145 |
| Court | United States District Court, District of Washington, Northern Division |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1897 |
| Parties | In re YEE GEE. |
Ballinger Ronald & Battle and Thomas Burke, for petitioner.
Wm. H Brinker, U.S. Atty., for respondent.
The petitioner having been committed, in default of bail, to await the action of the grand jury upon a charge made against him of violating section 5451, Rev. St., he now seeks to be discharged on the ground that the facts alleged in the sworn complaint filed against him, and shown by the testimony for the prosecution, do not constitute an offense for which he can be punished under the laws of the United States. The testimony taken before the United States commissioner at the preliminary examination of the petitioner tends to prove that he offered to bribe one J. E. Gardner to secure from him a translation favorable to the petitioner of certain Chinese letters and documents, which he expected would be offered in evidence at a hearing to take place before the said United States commissioner of a criminal charge then pending against the petitioner, and which letters and documents were supposed to contain evidence material to be considered upon said hearing; the said J. E. Gardner being competent to translate from the Chinese to the English language, and holding at the time an appointment from the secretary of the treasury as an interpreter of the Chinese language for an indefinite term and with fixed compensation, provided to be paid from the treasury of the United States, pursuant to appropriations for the purpose made by acts of congress. Section 5451, Rev. St makes it an offense for any person to promise, offer, give or cause or procure to be promised, offered, or given, any money or other thing of value, or to make or tender any contract * * * for the payment of money * * * to any officer of the United States, or to any person acting for or on behalf of the United States, in any official function, under or by authority of any department or office of the government thereof, * * * with intent to influence his decision or action on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding which may at any time be pending, or which may be brought before him in his official capacity, or in his place of trust or profit, or with intent to influence him to commit, or aid in committing, or to collude in or allow any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Evans
..."inapposite." The offense in Woelfel v. United States, 237 F.2d 484 (4th Cir. 1956), required proof of a specific intent. In In re Yee Gee, 83 F. 145 (D.Wash.1897), the court concluded that the government had not proven that the donee was a public 32 The State of New Mexico account was very......
-
The State v. Butler
...was to be made, but the indictment does not aver that such proposition was in fact about to be made. State v. Burke, 151 Mo. 136; In re Yee Gee, 83 F. 145; State v. Howard, 137 Mo. 289. (4) By reason of invalidity of the ordinance, there was no subject-matter of inquiry which could by law b......
-
United States v. Bowles
...such courts have uniformly recognized an intent to influence as an essential element of the offense. Thus, in the case of In re Yee Gee, D.C.Wash.1897, 83 F. 145, the Court stated (83 F. at page 146): "To make out a case under this section, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove: (a) ......
-
U.S. v. Gjieli
...within the cognizance of the state courts. The motion to quash is sustained. Id. at 835. A similar conclusion was reached in In re Yee Gee, 83 F. 145 (D.Wash.1897), where the defendant solicited a government employee to give false translations of Chinese letters and documents which the defe......