United States v. Curran, 342.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 342.,342. |
| Citation | 12 F.2d 639 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. FEMINA v. CURRAN, Commissioner of Immigration. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Emory R. Buckner, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Samuel C. Coleman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Frank J. Rinaldi, of New York City, for appellee.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
HOUGH, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Whether it is or is not a somewhat hypocritical assumption of moral superiority to forbid the entry into this country of aliens with lax views of the marriage vow, and privately addicted to freedom in sexual relations, is a point not without interest, but quite immaterial to such a case as this.
The language above quoted from the Immigration Act has been in similar statutes for nearly 20 years; it was thoroughly considered in United States v. Bitty, 208 U. S. 393, 28 S. Ct. 396, 52 L. Ed. 543, and held to cover the bringing in by a male immigrant of his mistress. The general subject of construction of the phrase "other immoral purpose," when used in conjunction with the word "prostitution," was further considered in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 37 S. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. 442, L. R. A. 1917F, 502, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1168. Result is that, if this relator did bring into this country Mrs. Faccio for the purpose of retaining her as, or making her, his mistress, he is subject to deportation.
The simple question before us is whether there was enough testimony, not necessarily offered, obtained, or received in accordance with what are called the rules of evidence, but fairly and honestly gotten and of probative force, to enable the Department of Labor to find the ultimate necessary fact. If there was such testimony, it is not for the courts to weigh the evidence contra, and decide as to the weight thereof, or as to the credibility of this or that witness, but, in the absence of any error in departmental construction of the language of the act, to refuse to interfere by habeas corpus. Diamond's Case (C. C. A.) 266 F. 34; Morrell v. Baker (C. C. A.) 270 F. 577; Palermo's Case (C. C. A.) 296 F. 345; Bieloszycka's Case (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 551.
We would render no aid in the administration of this act by dwelling on the details, unsavory in every way, of the evidence herein. It is enough to say, as we have above indicated, that, while relator's wife aided as she had instigated investigation, the evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. O'ROURKE, 14978.
... ... Nagle, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 875, 876; United States ex rel. Ng Wing v. Brough, 2 Cir., 15 F.2d 377, 379; United States ex rel. Femina v. Curran, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 639, 640; United States ex rel. Smith v. Curran, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 636, 637-638 ... Failure to produce, for ... ...
-
Sercerchi v. Ward, 6030.
...F. 2d 67; Ghiggeri v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 875; Lewis ex rel. Lai Thuey Lem v. Johnson, 1 Cir., 16 F.2d 180; United States ex rel. Femina v. Curran, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 639, 640. And it is further well established that hearsay evidence may be used when an opportunity is given to explain or re......
-
United States v. Martineau
...the immigration authorities. See U. S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 157, 44 S.Ct. 54, 57, 68 L.Ed. 221; United States v. Curran, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 639, 640; Ghiggeri v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 875, 876; Hays v. Zahariades, 8 Cir., 90 F.2d 3. But in any event it is immaterial whethe......