United States v. Chun Hoy

• Decision Date: 07 October 1901
• Docket Number: 687.
• Citation: 111 F. 899
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CHUN HOY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

111 F. 899

UNITED STATES v. CHUN HOY.

No. 687.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 7, 1901

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Territory of Hawaii.

Lorrin Andrews, F. H. Gould, and Samuel F. Chillingworth, for appellant.

Marshall B. Woodworth, for the United States.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of the United States for the territory of Hawaii, directing the deportation of the appellant, Chun Hoy, back to China, from which country he was permitted to land in Hawaii in August, 1900, by the collector of customs for that territory. Shortly thereafter a criminal information, duly verified, was filed against Hoy charging him with being unlawfully in the United States, upon which the judge of the court below directed that he be apprehended and brought before him, pursuant to the provisions of an act of congress entitled 'An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States,' approved May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. (1891, 1892) 25). The defendant appeared with counsel, and the trial resulted in the judgment from which the appeal is taken. The contention on his behalf is that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands, and when 1 year old was taken by his mother to China, where he remained for 17 years, and then came back. The only evidence introduced on the trial was introduced on behalf of the United States by its attorney. The defendant to the proceeding introduced no proof, but contended in the court below, as he does here, that the proof introduced on the part of the government shows him to be entitled to his discharge. That proof consisted of the testimony of a Chinese witness named Yee Fook, and that of E. R. Stackable, the collector of customs for the territory of Hawaii; a photograph of the defendant; and the following certificate:

'I Chun Fook, a resident of Honolulu, H.I., hereby state that my son, Chun Hoy, now 18 years of age, residing in China with his mother, Kam She, was born in Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. He was taken to China by his mother, 17 years ago and it is my wish that he now return to Honolulu. This statement is therefore made for the purpose of facilitating his landing on his return to Honolulu, H.I.

'(Chinese Signature.)

(i.e. Chun Fook.)

'Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of May, A.D. 1900.

'(Seal.)

N. Fernandez, Notary Public, Hawaiian Islands.

'We, Lam Wah Lin and Kam Shai, residents of Honolulu, H.I., hereby state that we are well acquainted with Chun Fook and his family, and of our own knowledge know that his son, Chun Hoy, was born in Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands.

'(Chinese Signature.)

(i.e. Lam Wah Lin.)

'(Chinese Signature.)

(i.e. Kam Shai.)

'Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of May, A.D. 1900.

'(Seal.)

N. Fernandez. '1st Jud. Circuit, Notary Public, Hawaiian Islands.'

The testimony of Yee Fook is to the effect that by the same steamer that brought the defendant and another Chinese boy of about the same age, named Lau Koon Yau (and who, by the stipulation of counsel, was tried at the same time upon similar proceedings against him), to Honolulu he received a letter from a friend in China, inclosing photographs of the two boys, and asking him to meet them on their arrival at Honolulu, which he said he did, and recognized them from the photographs sent him, and that when the defendant landed he went to join his relatives. The testimony of Stackable is to the effect that, as collector of customs, he was charge of the admission of Chinese immigrants to the islands, and that at the time in question one Joshua K. Brown was the Chinese inspector under him, and one Lau Sam Chau was the Chinese interpreter. He produced a memorandum book used upon the examination of such immigrants, and, turning to the record there made upon the admission of the appellant, said that a part of it was in the handwriting of the interpreter (who had since been suspended in connection with these two boys), and the balance of it in the handwriting of Brown. The record shows that the witness was then questioned, and answered as follows:

'Q. Be kind enough to show the court the handwriting of Joshua K. Brown on the record. A. 'Chun Hoy,'-- I give you the word,-- 'year 18 born, in Honolulu, born Hawaiian Islands. Went away one year old, with mother. Had a slight dark mark three years ago. Father, Chin Tung, in Honolulu; mother, Kum Shee and Bin Tow Man Long Heong Sai; had two brothers, aged 20 and 22, respectively, both in China,-- one Ton Hee, aged 20, and the other one Ghun Tong, aged 22.' That is the report made by J. K. Brown, and it was made at the examination of these two boys. Q. And you acted upon that report? A. I acted upon it. Q. And landed them? A. I admitted them. Q. Did the father send paper for one to come, and sent passage money for him to come, and a relative guarantied the passage money? A. The steamship company demand any one. Where there is any question, they have to pay a double passage money, so that there is no question about returning them. They are paid for in advance. That is what is meant by this special passage. This portion which I have read, so far as written in the Chinese interpreter's handwriting. Then Mr. Brown takes it up, 'Chun Fook, father, confirms above statement in every particular.' This must be

...