Williams v. Butterfield

• Citation: 145 F. Supp. 567
• Decision Date: 17 October 1956
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 13973.
• Parties: Frederick J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. James W. BUTTERFIELD, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Detroit, Michigan, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

145 F. Supp. 567

Frederick J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. James W. BUTTERFIELD, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Detroit, Michigan, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 13973.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

October 17, 1956.

Goodman, Crockett, Eden & Robb, Geo. W. Crockett, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Fred W. Kaess, U. S. Atty., Dwight K. Hamborsky, Ass't U. S. Atty., Detroit. Mich., for defendant.

THORNTON, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is a review of an Order of Deportation wherein the only question involved is whether the administrative finding of alienage is one which this Court may set aside.

Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by defendant in May of 1954 for purposes of deportation proceedings against him. Plaintiff was alleged to be an alien affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States and subject to deportation. An administrative hearing was held in June of 1954 before a Special Inquiry Officer of the United States Immigration Service, and as a result an Order of Deportation issued. Plaintiff took an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Washington, D. C., which appeal was dismissed in August of 1954. In December of 1954 plaintiff filed his complaint in this court asking that judgment be entered setting aside the Order of Deportation, that a permanent injunction issue restraining defendant from deporting, or attempting to deport plaintiff, pursuant to the Order of Deportation, and also that a temporary injunction of like nature issue pending final determination of this action.

The sole issue here is the competency of the evidence adduced at the administrative hearing, plaintiff contending that it was not competent for the purpose of the finding of alienage, and defendant claiming that it was. The evidence in question consists of a series of records which we list herewith:

Exhibit 4 — A record of marriage in Great Britain on June 10, 1904, between Owen Trevor Williams and Edith Hughes.

Exhibit 8 — A record of admission to the United States on April 19, 1906 of Owen Trevor Williams.

Exhibit 6 — A record showing birth in Great Britain on May 7, 1906 of a boy, Frederick John to Owen Trevor Williams and Edith Williams, formerly Hughes.

Exhibit 7 — A record showing admission to the United States on December 21, 1907 of a one-year old child, Fred Williams, accompanied by his mother, Edith Williams, and brother, Trevor Williams, destined to his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. John Hughes.

Exhibit 2 — A record of marriage on June 11, 1936 in Detroit, Michigan, between Frederick J. Williams and Emma Beaudin. This record shows the groom to be thirty years of age, and states that his father's name was Owen and his mother's name was Edith Hughes. The groom represented that he had been born in Pennsylvania.

Exhibit 3 — A voting record of Frederick J. Williams, which recites his birthdate as May 7, 1906 and his mother's name as Edith Hughes and claims birth in "U. S".

Plaintiff's view is that the records above listed were admitted without being related to the party charged, and that for this reason their admission was improper. Plaintiff contends that although the records refer to a party bearing the same name as plaintiff, there was no proof...