United States v. Moy Yim

• Decision Date: 29 April 1902
• Docket Number: 564-570.
• Citation: 115 F. 652
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MOY YIM. SAME v. CHUNG YOU. SAME v. DONG WAR. SAME v. FEE TOY. SAME v. MOY SHANG. SAME v. LEONG HAN CHE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

115 F. 652

UNITED STATES v. MOY YIM. SAME v. CHUNG YOU. SAME v. DONG WAR. SAME v. FEE TOY. SAME v. MOY SHANG. SAME v. LEONG HAN CHE.

Nos. 564-570.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

April 29, 1902

Charles A. Wilson, U.S. Dist. Atty.

Mr Smith, for defendants.

BROWN District Judge.

These are appeals to the district judge from a United States commissioner's orders of deportation. In each case the commissioner, upon a hearing, adjudged that the Chinese person was a Chinese laborer unlawfully within the United States, and made an order of deportation, and in each case an appeal was duly taken to the district judge. Upon the trial of the appeals it was admitted in each case that the United States had established a prima facie case, and that the Chinese person, at the time of his arrest, was engaged in the occupation of a laborer. It was contended for the Chinese persons that the exclusion act was inapplicable, for the reason that during the period of six months immediately after the passage of the act of November 3, 1893 (28 Stat. 7), each of these persons was a 'merchant,' as defined in section 2 of said act, and was therefore not required to apply to the collector of internal revenue for a certificate of residence. I am of the opinion that the evidence was unsatisfactory and insufficient in each case to establish the fact that any one of these persons was a merchant during this period; and there is no evidence to show that any one of them was engaged in a business 'conducted in his name,' whatever liberality of construction may be given to those words. The names of these persons do not appear to have been known or used in any way whatever, whether in a firm designation, partnership articles, or otherwise, in connection with a business. The decision of the circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit in Lee Kan.v. U.S., 10 C.C.A. 669, 62 F. 914, is, therefore, not applicable in favor of the appellants, since they do not bring themselves within the statute as liberally construed in that case. The decision in the case of U.S. v. Pin Kwan, 40 C.C.A. 618, 100 F. 609, cited on behalf of the United States, is more closely applicable to the present cases. But even if we should accept the view of counsel for the appellants, and hold that each of these persons was, during the period from November 3, 1893 to May 3, 1894, a merchant, this would not be conclusive of their present right to...