United States v. Dupont
Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
Docket Number | 5,206. |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. DUPONT. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Walter H. Evans, Asst. U.S. Atty.
J. E Fenton, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted for perjury in falsely stating in a petition for naturalization filed by her in the circuit court of Clatsop county that she had resided in the state of Oregon for one year at least prior to the date of such petition.
The defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground that the facts therein stated do not constitute a crime, for the reason that the declaration in her petition for naturalization touching her residence in Oregon was extrajudicial and immaterial. It is elementary that perjury cannot be assigned of an oath not required by law. Unless therefore, the law requires an applicant for naturalization to state in his petition that he has resided in the state one year at least, the indictment does not state a crime.
Subdivision 2 of section 4 of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906 (Chapter 3592, 34 Stat. 597 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p 478)), defining what a petition for naturalization shall contain, provides that not less than two nor more than seven years after an alien has made his declaration of intent to become a citizen he shall make and file in duplicate a petition in writing duly verified, in which he shall state his full name, his place of residence, his occupation, and if possible the date and place of his birth; the place from which he emigrated, the date and place of his arrival in the United States, and, if he entered through a port, the name of the vessel on which he arrived; the time when and the place and name of the court where he declared his intention to become a citizen; the name of his wife, if married, and if possible the country of her nativity, and her place of residence at the time of filing his petition; the name, and place of birth, and residence of each child, if he has any living at the time of filing his petition; that he is not a disbeliever in, or opposed to, organized government or a member of or affiliated with any organization or body of persons teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government; a polygamist, or a believer in the practice of polygamy; that it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance or fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he, at the time of filing his petition, may be a citizen or subject; and that it is his intention to reside permanently within the United States; and whether or not he has been denied admission as a citizen, and, if denied, the ground or grounds of such denial; the court or courts in which such decision was rendered, and that the cause for such denial has been cured or removed, and 'every fact material to his naturalization, and required to be proved upon the final hearing of his application.'
The petition is thus required to be verified by the applicant and, in addition to the matters specially named, to contain a statement of every fact material to his naturalization and required to be proved on final hearing. If, therefore, residence within the state for at least one year prior to the date of the application is a fact material to be proven on final hearing, it is to be stated in the petition, and a knowingly false...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Millspaugh
... ... Reserve Bank agreed to forward through the United States mail ... direct to the Bank of Oran all items coming through it for ... collection; and ... ...
-
United States v. Bressi
... ... inquiry, and that any examination of the applicant prior to ... that time is immaterial, and cites U.S. v Grottkau ... (D.C.) 30 F. 672; U.S. v. Severino (C.C.) 125 ... F. 949; In re Ross (C.C.) 188 F. 685; In re Hopp ... (D.C.) 179 F. 561; U.S. v. Dupont (D.C.) 176 F ... 823; In re Di Clerico (D.C.) 158 F. 905; U.S. v ... Bedgood (D.C.) 49 F. 54; U.S. v. Singleton ... (D.C.) 54 F. 488; U.S. v. Maid (D.C.) 116 F ... These ... cases are all readily distinguishable from the facts in this ... case. U.S. v. Grottkau (D.C.) 30 F. 672, ... ...
-
Shelton v. United States
...85 L.Ed. 598. 9 Epstein v. United States, 7 Cir., 1912, 196 F. 354; Schmidt v. United States, 9 Cir., 1904, 133 F. 257; United States v. Dupont, D.C.Or.1910, 176 F. 823; Hammer v. United States, 2 Cir., 1925, 6 F. 2d 786, reversed on other grounds, 1926, 271 U.S. 620, 625, 46 S.Ct. 603, 70 ......
-
State v. Lathrop H. Baldwin
... ... sentence thereon. The respondent excepted. The opinion states ... the case ... ... Judgment reversed. Judgment that the respondent is not ... ministerial act of administering it. U.S. v. Dupont, ... 176 F. 823, 824; State v. Larson, 171 Minn ... 246, 249, 213 N.W. 900, 901. It is said that ... ...