United States v. Marcus, 4271.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 4271.,4271. |
| Citation | 1 F. Supp. 29 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MARCUS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Phillip Forman, U. S. Atty., of Trenton, N. J., and Oliver Randolph, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Newark, N. J.
Glenn & Glenn, of Atlantic City, N. J., for respondent.
The United States, through its attorney, filed a petition, praying cancellation of naturalization certificate issued to the respondent.
The facts are that the respondent, a native of Hungary, filed her declaration of intention in the name of Mary Marcus, in the state of New York, in the year 1922. She removed to New Jersey in 1925. Subsequently, she filed her petition for naturalization in the Atlantic county common pleas court, and in November, 1928, the petition was granted and certificate issued.
Petitioner attacks the validity of the certificate and asks for its cancellation on the ground that the respondent falsely stated in her petition, in answering the question as to her marital status, that she was single, whereas in fact she was then married, the ceremony having been performed in Hungary on May 11, 1928; her claimed husband's name being Armin Markowitz. Respondent admits the marriage, but says it was solemnized by a magistrate, and that it would not be complete, so far as she and her family were concerned, until solemnized by the religious organization to which she belonged.
By admission, however, it was a valid civil marriage. Respondent in her testimony endeavors to explain the omission, by stating that prior to filing her petition for naturalization she talked with some of her friends, who advised her to withhold the information of her marriage as it might in some way prevent her naturalization.
The statute with relation to contents of the petition for naturalization (8 USCA § 379), among other things, requires the petitioner, in his own handwriting, "if he is married he shall state the name of his wife and, if possible, the country of her nativity and her place of residence at the time of filing his petition."
This portion of the law with relation to marital relation applies to the female as well as the male sex.
No question of jurisdiction is raised, but the respondent claims that the certificate was not obtained by fraud and was not illegally issued.
The fact that the respondent was married at the time of naturalization would not have justified the court in refusing the petition on that ground alone. See 8 USCA § 367.
The respondent, however, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Parisi, 2471.
...generally been held sufficient basis for cancellation of the certificate. United States v. Etheridge, D.C., 41 F.2d 762; United States v. Marcus, D.C., 1 F.Supp. 29; United States v. De Francis, 60 App. D.C. 207, 50 F.2d 497; United States v. Albertini, D.C., 206 F. 133. But the grounds for......
-
United States v. Kessler
...decisions which are in accord with these views are United States v. Goldstein, E.D.N.Y.1939, 30 F.Supp. 771; United States v. Marcus, D.C.D.N.J.1932, 1 F.Supp. 29; United States v. Di Blasi, D.C.D.N.J.1932, 1 F.Supp. 28, and United States v. Etheridge, D.C.D.Or.1930, 41 F.2d 762. Without di......
-
United States v. Shapiro
...Court for the Eastern District of New York, it is clear that the citizenship certificate would never have been issued. United States v. Marcus, D.C.N.J.1932, 1 F.Supp. 29. All of the statutory conditions and qualifications provided by Congress must exist and must be proved before citizenshi......
-
United States v. Murray, Civil Action No. 621.
...for the Eastern District of New York, it is clear that the citizenship certificate would never have been issued." Citing United States v. Marcus, D.C., 1 F. Supp. 29. See United States v. Etheridge, D.C., 41 F.2d 762, and cases cited there; United States v. Zgrebec, supra; Application of Le......