United States v. Lem You
| Decision Date | 06 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 1-315. |
| Citation | 224 F. 519 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LEM YOU. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Max J Kohler, of New York City, for appellant.
Edwin M. Stanton, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, for the United States.
A point of law is raised by this appeal which to me is novel. When Lem You was arrested, instead of being taken for examination before an inspector or immigration officer, he was haled directly before Commissioner Houghton and there asked certain questions and made certain answers. This examination was offered in evidence by the government, and objected to on the ground, substantially, that such an examination carried on without counsel was unlawful.
In my opinion, proceedings in the matter of Chinese exclusion are summary; they are not to be compared with the trial of either a civil or criminal suit, nor do they resemble hearings before a committing magistrate. The statute contains no prohibition upon asking a Chinaman questions regarding his right to remain in this country at any time or place, or by any officer or official, and what the statute does not forbid it is not in the interests of justice to read into the act because (as I have said in other Chinese cases) it is highly conductive to ascertaining the truth to find out what the Chinaman will say when suddenly asked as to his right to remain.
Holding that this examination was a proper piece of evidence, I fail to see how it injures appellant's case. He immediately claimed American birth, said he had been in New York since he was about four years old, and gave the name of a man who had known him and looked after him since his father returned to China, while the appellant was still very young. The result of all the evidence is that it is true that this young man has known no other home than New York City for 21 of the 25 years of his life, and that fact is weighty matter in his favor, as was held in United States v. Leu Jin (D.C.) 192 F. 580.
For the rest he testifies, and testifies alone, that according to his father's statements to him he was born in San Francisco and his evidence, though hearsay, is admissible and competent, because the matter is one of pedigree or descent. It is undoubtedly true that the only direct testimony as to this appellant's place of birth is his statement, based upon his father's assertions. But it has often been pointed out in cases of this nature that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Wong Yee Toon
...1165, is conclusive. To the same effect are In re Madeiros (D.C.) 225 F. 90; United States v. Moy Toom (D.C.) 224 F. 520; United States v. Lem You (D.C.) 224 F. 519; United States ex rel. Buccino v. Williams (C.C.) F. 897; United States ex rel. Ivanow v. Greenawalt (D.C.) 213 F. 901; Sire v......
-
United States v. Lee Hee
...answer given before there has been time for reflection or consultation is likely to be the truth is well recognized. United States v. Lem You, 224 F. 519 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); United States v. Moy Toom, 224 F. 520 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); United States v. Hom Lim, 223 F. 520 (C. C. A. 2). Lee He......
-
Delmore v. Brownell, Civ. A. No. 957-53.
...United States v. Wong Gong, 9 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 107; Lee Pong Tai v. Acheson, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1952, 104 F.Supp. 503; United States v. Lem You, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1915, 224 F. 519; 5 Wig. § 1501 (1940 ed.); Model Code of Evidence, Rule 524 (1942); Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rules 63(23) and 63 (24) a......
-
Brewster v. Villa, 8419.
...to be believed only when corroborated by the circumstances and not where, as here, it is contradicted by them. Compare United States v. Lem You (D.C.) 224 F. 519. The judgment is reversed, with direction to discharge the writ of habeas corpus and remand the applicant to ...