United States v. Edgar
Decision Date | 29 January 1891 |
Citation | 45 F. 44 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. EDGAR. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This is a suit under section 3, Act Feb. 26, 1885, (23 U.S.St. 333,) to recover a penalty for prepaying the transportation of two aliens from Bristol, England, to the United States, such aliens being at the time, as it is claimed, under a contract to perform labor for the defendant in the United States. The petition, after alleging the prepayment of the transportation, while the aliens were under a contract to perform labor in the United States, further avers that 'said contract and agreement between defendant and said aliens was entered into between them by letters forwarded and delivered by mail, which letters are as follows:
'NO 16 AIKEN ST., BARTON HILL, BRISTOL, April 11, 1890.
From Mr. I. Boyce to Mr. Gray, the manager-- DEAR SIR: I have heard that you are in want of men to work on the spilter furnaces I and one of my fellow workmen would like to come out hear as the workshear is very slack if it would be convenient for you to send us a pass each we would come out as soon as possible we have both worked in the spelter works for many years would you oblige us by writing back to let us now and oblige
'I. BOYCE, 'No 16 Aiken Street, Barton Hill, Bristol England.
Yours, truly, S. C. EDGAR.'
It is conceded by the government that the letters constitute the only evidence of a contract that it can produce. It is further averred, in substance, that on receipt of the last of the above letters, Boyce and Dorosalski presented the same to Richardson, spence & Co., at Liverpool, England, and received from that firm tickets for their passage thence to St. Louis, Mo., which had been theretofore paid for by the defendant, and that the aliens thereupon took passage on a vessel from England to Philadelphia, intending to come to St. Louis and perform labor for the defendant, but that, on the arrival of the vessel at Philadelphia, the immigrant inspector at said port, on an examination of the circumstances under which they had come to the United States, refused to permit them to land, and ordered them to be sent back to England. To the petition alleging the above facts the defendant demurs.
Geo. D. Reynolds, U.S. Atty.
F. N. Judson, for defendant.
THAYER, J., (after stating the facts as above.)
Two questions have been argued at the bar: First, whether Boyce or Dorosalski, as shown by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States
... ... condemnation only those who are shown, by direct and positive ... averments and clear proof to be embraced within the terms of ... the law." Moffit v. United States, 128 F. 375, ... 63 C.C.A. 117. "The law is highly penal, and must be ... strictly construed." United States v. Edgar, 45 ... F. 44; United States v. Gay, 95 F. 226; United ... States v. Stevenson, 215 U.S. 190, 30 S.Ct. 35, 54 L.Ed ... 153. A master is not liable criminally for the unlawful act ... of his agent, or servant, though such unlawful act was ... committed in the master's business, unless ... ...
-
United States v. McElroy
...the law, and form the basis of the action, should be set out. U.S. v. Craig (C.C.) 28 F. 795; U.S. v. Bornemane (D.C.) 41 F. 751; U.S. v. Edgar (C.C.) 45 F. 44; Moller v. U.S. 6 C.C.A. 459, 57 F. 490; U.S. Gay (C.C.) 80 F. 254. This is important, as enabling the defendant to know just what ......
-
United States v. Gay
... ... contract in haec verba, or even attempting to set forth the ... substance of either. At least, the substance of the ... advertisements and contract should be set out to enable the ... court to determine whether they bring the defendant within ... the condemnation of the statute. U.S. v. Edgar, 45 ... F. 44. There is no direct allegation that the immigrant named ... in the declaration actually came to this country pursuant to ... the alleged contract for the purpose of performing manual ... labor or service. Such an averment is essential. U.S. v ... Craig, 28 F. 795, 799. There is ... ...
-
Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Holder
...the alien labor acts, to contract with an alien within the jurisdiction of the United States. U.S. v. Craig, 28 F. 795, 799; U.S. v. Edgar, 45 F. 44; same case on error, C.C.A. 49, 48 F. 91. Thus, in the Michigan statute, no penalty is directed against the execution of a contract outside of......