Sam Yick v. United States
Decision Date | 19 March 1917 |
Docket Number | 2542. |
Citation | 240 F. 60 |
Parties | SAM YICK et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mott & Dillon and Isidore B. Dockweiler, all of Los Angeles, Cal (Thomas A. J. Dockweiler and G. C. O'Connell, both of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Albert Schoonover, U.S. Atty., and J. Robert O'Connor and Clyde Moody, Asst. U.S. Attys., all of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs in error were convicted under an indictment charging them with the crime of conspiracy, in that they did on the 24th day of August, 1911, within the county of Kern in the Southern district of California, willfully unlawfully, and feloniously conspire and agree, together with divers other persons to the grand jurors unknown, to unlawfully bring and cause to be brought into the United States from divers places in the republic of Mexico 'certain Chinese persons, to wit, Dock Yook, See Chew, and Wah Sung, each being a Chinese person, and any and all other and additional Chinese persons who were then and those who would thereafter be in said republic of Mexico, desiring and intending to enter the United States,' none of whom being entitled under the laws of the United States to enter this country. The indictment also set out certain alleged overt acts of one of the alleged conspirators, consisting of the purchase of a certain railway ticket by him in pursuance of the conspiracy for his transportation from Bakersfield to the city of San Diego, and in further pursuance of the alleged conspiracy his leaving that city for the town of Tia Juana, Mexico, for the purpose of arranging to bring three certain named Chinese persons across the international boundary into the United States.
It appears from the evidence introduced on the trial by the government that one Morse was its local inspector of immigration at Bakersfield during the times in question, having gone there in that capacity about the 1st of January, 1911, and that in the performance of his duties he had frequent occasion to see the defendant Sam Yick (whom he speaks of in his testimony as the principal Chinaman in that vicinity) in regard to Chinamen in and around Bakersfield; that on the 8th day of May, 1911, he had a talk with Sam Yick in reference to smuggling Chinese into this country, having gone to Yick's store to inquire about a Chinaman named Woo Jung Sing; that Yick told him he knew the Chinaman, and that he was on a ranch about five miles out of Bakersfield, and that he would take the inspector out to see him, as he wanted to have a talk with the latter anyway; that Yick did so the afternoon of the same day. We insert the following from the testimony of the inspector in regard to that trip:
That testimony clearly tended to show an attempt by Sam Yick to bribe the inspector. The record further shows that on the same day, May 8th, Morse reported the matter to his superior officer at Los Angeles, who, after consultation with the then Assistant United States Attorney there, instructed Morse 'to go ahead and try to apprehend him (Sam Yick) by going in with him'; that the next conversation that Morse had with Yick was in the store of the latter in Bakersfield about 9 o'clock in the evening of May 17th, in response to the request of Sam Yick, which is thus stated by Morse in his testimony:
The next conversation Morse had, according to his testimony, with Yick, was in the evening of August 10th, in the back room of the latter's store, in which conversation, according to the testimony of the witness, Yick said he had heard from Ensenada two or three times since he had last seen the witness, and had received the photographs of four Chinese, who he said were ready to come as soon as they could get the papers prepared for them, and asked the witness whether he had made arrangements with the inspector at San Diego to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sorrells v. United States
...States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, 66 A.L.R. 376. 4 See, also, United States v. Adams (D.C.) 59 F. 674; Sam Yick v. United States (C.C.A.) 240 F. 60, 65; United States v. Echols (D.C.) 253 F. 862; Peterson v. United States (C.C.A.) 255 F. 433; Billingsley v. United States (C.......
-
O'BRIEN v. United States
...S. v. Lynch, 256 F. 983 (D. C. N. Y.); U. S. v. Echols, 253 F. 862 (D. C. Tex.); Voves v. U. S., 249 F. 191 (C. C. A. 7); Sam Yick v. U. S., 240 F. 60 (C. C. A. Cal.); Woo Wai v. U. S., 223 F. 412 (C. C. A. 9); U. S. v. Thompson, 202 F. 346 (D. C. Cal.); U. S. v. Healy, 202 F. 349 (D. C. Mo......
-
State v. Kirkbride
...(Ariz.) 171 P. 133; Peterson vs. U. S. 255 F. 433; 8 R. C. L. 127-129; 1. Zoline's F. C. L. & P. 290; U. S. vs. Jones, 80 F. 513; Yick vs. U. S. 240 F. 60; U. S. Echols, 253 F. 862; U. S. vs. Healy, 202 F. 349; Smith vs. State (Tex.) 135 S.W. 154; State vs. McCornish, (Utah) 201 P. 637; Sta......
-
United States v. Reisenweber, 138.
... ... which he was thus induced to commit. Butts v. United ... States, 273 F. 35, 18 A.L.R. 143; United States v ... Lynch (D.C.) 256 F. 983; Peterson v. United ... States, 255 F. 433, 166 C.C.A. 509; Voves v. United ... States, 249 F. 191, 161 C.C.A. 227; Yick v. United ... States, 240 F. 60, 153 C.C.A. 96; Woo Wai v. United ... States, 223 F. 412, 137 C.C.A. 604; State v ... Dougherty, 88 N.J.Law, 209, 96 A. 56, L.R.A. 1916C, 991, ... Ann. Cas. 1917D, 950; Connor v. People, 18 Colo ... 373, 33 P. 159, 25 L.R.A. 341, 36 Am.St.Rep. 295. The law ... ...