United States v. Goldstein
Decision Date | 14 January 1921 |
Docket Number | 5427. |
Citation | 271 F. 838 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. GOLDSTEIN et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
On January 2, 1914, the United States of America filed its bill in equity in the District Court of the United States within and for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, under section 15 of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (Comp. St. Sec. 4374), against Shloen Layzor Evel Yokovich Klubok, alias Sall Glubok, by which the government sought and prayed the cancellation of the letters of citizenship granted to said Glubok by the said United States District Court for the division and district last aforesaid on the 7th day of October, 1910. In its bill the government alleged and charged, among other things, that said Klubok had fraudulently and illegally obtained and procured entry of the said decree or letters admitting him to American citizenship by reason of fraud, perjury, deceit, and imposition committed and practiced upon the court by him and his verifying witnesses, Nat A. Goldstein and William Sacks, appellees in this matter, in this, to wit: That the said petitioner had falsely and fraudulently represented himself to be a man of good moral character, and to be fully qualified to be admitted to American citizenship, and that the said witnesses, Nat A. Goldstein, and William Sacks, had been guilty of the commission of fraud, deceit, and imposition on the court, in falsely asserting and stating under oath, in the affidavit executed by them as part of the petition for naturalization of said Glubok, that they knew of their own personal knowledge that said petitioner was a man of good moral character, and had conducted and behaved himself as such for the period of time requisite under the naturalization statute, and that he was in all respects qualified and eligible to be admitted a citizen of the United States of America, and that said witnesses had further been guilty of the commission of fraud, deceit, and imposition on the court in falsely and fraudulently representing and testifying in open court on the final hearing on said petition for naturalization of said Glubok that they of their own personal knowledge knew said petitioner to be a man of good moral character, and to have conducted and behaved himself as such, as required by the naturalization statute and that they knew him to be in all respects qualified and eligible to be admitted to American citizenship.
The bill of complaint then alleged further that in truth and in fact the said Klubok was not a man of good moral character and had not conducted or behaved himself as such, as required by the statute in such matter made and provided, and that the affidavits executed by said witnesses, in which they stated that they knew of their own personal knowledge that the petitioner for naturalization was a man of good moral character and had conducted and behaved himself as such was false and untrue, and that the testimony of said witnesses, given under oath in open court on the final hearing on the petition for naturalization of the petitioner, in which said witnesses had falsely and fraudulently represented that they of their own personal knowledge knew the petitioner for naturalization Glubok, to be a man of good moral character, and to have behaved and conducted himself as such for the requisite period of time as demanded by the naturalization statute, was false and untrue, and that in truth and in fact the said Glubok, for a considerable period of time previous to his naturalization, had lived with and off the illegitimate earnings of his wife, Annie Glubok, alias Lizzie Greenstein, who during all of said time had been a common prostitute and keeper of houses of prostitution at various addresses in the city of St. Louis, Mo. The affidavits attached to and forming part of the said bill of complaint, executed by various officers of the metropolitan police department of the city of St. Louis, Mo., as well as others established the fact of the bad moral character of the said petitioner for naturalization Glubok as alleged in the government's bill.
On February 26, 1914, the defendant Glubok filed a joint plea and answer to the bill of complaint, in which he alleged and claimed compliance with the statutory requirements in obtaining grant of the letters of citizenship, and denied that he or his verifying witnesses had been guilty of any fraud, deception, or perjury in obtaining the entry of said decree or letters of citizenship. The cause was heard by Judge Pollock of the district of Kansas, who had been duly assigned to the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On June 16, 1915, the defendant failing to appear, the case was heard and submitted to the court upon the petition of the plaintiff, the answer of the defendant, and the proofs adduced. On the 18th day of June, 1915, two days subsequent to the date of the hearing and submission, a final decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff, the United States of America, which is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
...to events which occurred subsequently to the decree. Issues not raised by the pleadings cannot be determined. United States v. Goldstein (C. C. A. 8) 271 F. 838, 845. A decree, in so far as it undertakes to decide issues not made by the pleadings, is void. Jorgenson Co. v. Rapp (C. C. A. 9)......
-
Shubert Theatrical Co. v. Rath
... 271 F. 827 SHUBERT THEATRICAL CO. v. RATH et al. No. 170. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 16, 1921 ... [271 F. 828] ... ...
-
Larkin Packer Co. v. Hinderliter Tool Co.
...of fact in the decree. Putnam v. Day, 89 U. S. (22 Wall.) 60, 22 L. Ed. 764; McClaskey v. Barr (C. C.) 48 F. 130." United States v. Goldstein (C. C. A. 8) 271 F. 838, 844. That the decree in the present case is general in terms does not change the rule; with a decree like this, resort to fi......
-
In re Associated Gas & Electric Co.
...order for drawing grand jury. See Apgar v. United States, 255 F. 16, 18 (C.C.A.5), order for drawing petit jurors; United States v. Goldstein, 271 F. 838 (C.C.A.8), expunging certain findings in a decree. In Horn v. Pere Marquette R. Co. (C.C.) 151 F. 626, 638, the appointment of a receiver......