United States v. Juen

• Decision Date: 11 March 1904
• Citation: 128 F. 522
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. LOUIE JUEN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana

128 F. 522

UNITED STATES v. LOUIE JUEN.

United States District Court, D. Montana.

March 11, 1904

Appeal from Order of United States Commissioner.

Carl Rasch, U.S. Atty.

Sanders & Sanders, for defendant.

KNOWLES District Judge.

Appeal from an order of deportation made by Edward C. Russel, United States Commissioner. Louie Juen was arrested upon a warrant charging him with being unlawfully within the United States in violation of the acts of Congress excluding Chinese persons. At the time of his arrest, Louie Juen was engaged as a laborer. He claims, however, that he was a merchant residing at Helena, Mont., at the time of the passage of the Geary act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, 27 Stat. 25 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1319), and during the time provided for the registration of Chinese laborers under that act. The question presented is as to whether said Juen was a merchant at that time, and engaged in that business. Capt. E. R. Tandy testified that he was a farmer and engaged in a mining enterprise from 1889 or 1890 to 1895, and that during that period he employed Chinese laborers, and during that time he was frequently at a Chinese store situated in the upper part of Helena, Mont., looking for laborers, and there saw Juen who seemed to be occupied in conducting the business of said store. Gen. Charles D. Curtis testified that he had frequently seen Juen in the store testified to by Capt Tandy. While it was evident from the testimony of Juen and others that Gen. Curtis was mistaken as to the time he saw the appellant in this store, still I do not think this destroys his evidence entirely. He might have been mistaken as to the dates when he saw him, and yet be correct as to the fact that he did see him. Witnesses are more likely to be incorrect as to dates than any other part of their evidence. There were, however, some three Chinese witnesses who testified that from about 1889 to 1903 said Juen did conduct business as a merchant in said Helena in the building named by Tandy and Curtis. One of these testified that, when Juen came to Helena to enter into this mercantile business, he borrowed $300 of him, which sum, added to what he then had, amounted $1,000; that he had two partners, who each put into said business $1,000; and that this firm carried on business as merchants in Helena from 1889 to 1903-- about 13 years in all. One of these witnesses was known as 'Chinese Charlie,' who had lived in Helena...