Tom Wah v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | 268. |
| Citation | 163 F. 1008 |
| Parties | TOM WAH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
R. M. Moore, for appellant.
Alford W. Cooley, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. Warner Parker, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. for the United States.
Before COXE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The question involved may be stated briefly as follows: Can a Chinese person, against whom deportation proceedings are pending, be called as a witness by the United States and compelled to answer questions relevant to the pending issue? That this question must be answered in the affirmative is sustained by a decided preponderance of authority.
The District Judge has stated the facts and has cited the principal authorities establishing the right and power of the District Court to punish for contempt a witness who refuses to answer in circumstances similar to those shown by this record. Since the decision of the Supreme Court, followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of several of the circuits, that the proceeding to deport is civil, and not criminal, in its nature, the principal argument for sustaining the refusal to answer has been removed. We deem it unnecessary to add to the discussion found in the opinion below.
The order is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Bilokumsky v. Tod, 92
...Yin v. United States, 145 Fed. 791, 76 C. C. A. 355; Law Chin Woon v. United States, 147 Fed. 227, 77 C. C. A. 369; Tom Wah v. United States, 163 F. 1008, 90 C. C. A. 178; In re Chan Foo Lin, 243 F. 137, 140, 156 C. C. A. 3; United States v. Brooks (D. C.) 284 Fed. 908, 910. Act of Feb. 5, ......
-
United States v. Harbin
...and does not hold courts (Todd v. U. S., 158 U. S. 278, 15 S. Ct. 889, 39 L. Ed. 982; U. S. v. Tom Wah D. C. 160 F. 207; Id. C. C. A. 163 F. 1008). The term "quasi judicial," when applied to an officer, implies a difference between him and a judge or judicial officer in the proper sense. Th......
-
Rothman v. Campbell
...see Todd v. United States, 158 U. S. 278, 15 S. Ct. 889, 39 L. Ed. 982; United States v. Tom Wah (D. C.) 160 F. 207, affirmed 163 F. 1008 (C. C. A. 2d); United States v. Maresca (D. C.) 266 F. 713; United States ex rel. Finch v. Elliott (D. C.) 3 F.(2d) 496, affirmed 5 F.(2d) 292 (C. C. A. ......
-
United States v. Jones
...has conferred specific authority or imposed the performance of a special duty. United States v. Tom Wah (D.C.) 160 F. 207, affirmed 163 F. 1008, 90 C.C.A. 178; Todd United States, 158 U.S. 282, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982; Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 10 L.Ed. 138; United States v. Allred, ......