United States v. Uhl, 190.
Decision Date | 12 May 1920 |
Docket Number | 190. |
Citation | 266 F. 34 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. DIAMOND v. UHL, Acting Immigration Com'r. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Charles Recht, of New York City (Elinor Byrns and David Barr, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Francis G. Caffey, U.S. Atty., of New York City (David V. Cahill, Sp Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
The petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus and alleged that he was being unlawfully detained at the immigration station at Ellis Island, N.Y., and was about to be deported to Italy. A hearing was had before the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the writ of habeas corpus has been dismissed, and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the acting commissioner of immigration at the port of New York.
It appears that the relator is an alien, a native of Italy, born in 1876, and that he came to the United States in 1901, and declared his intention to become a citizen in 1917. It also appears that he was arrested on July 18, 1919, under a warrant of arrest issued by the Department of Labor which charged 'that he advocates the assassination of public officials, and that he advocates the unlawful destruction of property. ' His arrest was followed by hearings, one on July 23, 1919, and another on September 16, 1919, before the United States immigrant inspector. The inspector at the close of the hearings found the following facts:
The report of the hearings and the findings were submitted to the Department of Labor.
The relator being unable to speak and understand the English language satisfactorily, an interpreter in Italian was sworn who interpreted all questions asked and answers given at the hearings. The relator was informed at the time that the purpose of the hearings was to afford him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be deported to the country whence he came. He was represented throughout the hearings by counsel, and witnesses called by him were heard.
The arrest of the relator was due to a riot in the city of Rome, N.Y., on July 14, 1919. In June and July there was a strike on among the operatives at certain mills in that city. The petitioner was a restaurant keeper, and apparently not connected with any of the mills. He appears, however, to have been active in the strike, and to have taken part in an attack made on one Spargo, the president and manager of one of the mills, who was assaulted and stabbed while in his automobile. The result was that relator was placed under arrest by the state authorities, charged with two offenses, and was released on bail; $3,000 on one charge and $5,000 on the other charge. An affidavit made by Spargo is in the record, which is as follows:
'James A. Spargo, being duly sworn, says that he is president of the Spargo Wire Company, of Rome, N.Y.; that on July 14, 1919, as he was going down East Dominick street, in the city of Rome, N.Y., in his automobile about 8 o'clock in the morning, a large crowd of people led by Rocco Di Blasis attacked deponent, stopping his automobile and breaking same; that the said Rocco Di Blasis jumped on the running board of said car and stabbed deponent on the arm; that after deponent was stabbed he grabbed his gun, but deponent was overpowered, stabbed, bruised, clubbed, and beaten about the head and body and by the crowd led by Di Blasis; that deponent had been told that he was a marked man and would be killed; that deponent has been told that his house would be blown up, and that the houses and plants of the various manufacturers of the city of Rome would be destroyed, and that the manufacturers themselves would be gotten.'
This affidavit was read to relator, and he was asked whether it was true. He denied that it was, and denied that he was leading the crowd, but admitted that he was present. The following is an excerpt from the record:
There is in the record an affidavit from a policeman which is as follows:
The relator's attention was called to this affidavit and he was asked:
The following affidavit was also read to the relator, and he was asked whether the statements it contained were true, and he admitted that they were:
An affidavit was presented at the hearing, made by one Capozzoli, which in part is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hyun v. Landon
...accorded, hearsay evidence is admissible." Emphasis added. See also Morrell v. Baker, 2 Cir., 1920, 270 F. 577; United States ex rel. Diamond v. Uhl, 2 Cir., 1920, 266 F. 34; and Christianson v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 1937, 89 F.2d 40. Furthermore, contrary to appellant's contention the mere fact......
-
Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon
...40; United States ex rel. Ross v. Wallis, 2 Cir., 1922, 279 F. 401; Morrell v. Baker, 2 Cir., 1920, 270 F. 577; United States ex rel. Diamond v. Uhl, 2 Cir., 1920, 266 F. 34. In view of these authorities, we cannot say that there was error in admitting the statements of the aliens. Furtherm......
-
Kjar v. Doak
...contention. United States ex rel. Smith v. Curran (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 636; Morrell v. Baker (C. C. A.) 270 F. 577; United States ex rel. Diamond v. Uhl (C. C. A.) 266 F. 34. As to the second objection, it is hardly probable that the father was referring to any son other than appellant, and......
-
Skeffington v. Katzeff, 1508.
... ... 129 SKEFFINGTON, Immigration Com'r, v. KATZEFF et al. No. 1508.United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.January 11, 1922 [277 F. 130] ... States, 227 F. 1, 7, 141 C.C.A. 555; United States ... v. Uhl (C.C.A.) 266 F. 34, 39 ... It has ... also been definitely ... ...