General
In re HUI GNOW DOY
91 F. 1006·United States District Court for the Northern District of California·1898
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re HUI GNOW DOY.
(District Court, N. D. California.
December 17, 1898.)
No. 11,622.
Deportation of Chinese.
Proceeding upon habeas corp'us. The petitioner is of Chinese descent, but in his petition he stated that he was born in the United States, and upon that ground asked the court to adjudge that he is entitled to enter and remain in this country. Upon the hearing the petitioner testified that he was bom at No. 710 Dupont street, in the city of San Francisco, on January 30, 1879, and was taken by his parents to China in 1881, where he remained until a few weeks prior to the'date of filing the petition herein. In his testimony he was corroborated by two other Chinese witnesses, who also testified that upon visits to China in the years 1886 and 1894 they had seen the petitioner there. Neither the petitioner nor his witnesses speak the English language, and their testimony was given through an interpreter.
Alfred L. Worley, for petitioner.
H. S. Foote, for the United States.
[MAJORITY — DE HAVEN, District Judge.]
DE HAVEN, District Judge.
I have fully discussed in the opinion this day rendered in Re Jew AVong Loy, 91 Fed. 240, on habeas corpus, the rule by w.hich the court should be governed in disposing of cases of this character, where the claim made by the iietitioner js supported only by the testimony of Chinese witnesses. It will only be necessary, therefore, for me to announce my conclusion in this case, which is that I am not •satisfied, from the evidence submitted, that the petitioner was born in the United States, as claimed by him. The testimony of the petitioner and his witnesses was devoid of reference to any incident or circumstance by means of which their evidence in relation to the place of petitioner’s birth could be either corroborated or impeached. The naked testimony of these witnesses, unsupported by any fact or circumstance, does not furnish to my mind satisfactory pi oof that the petitioner is entitled to remain in the United States. Petitioner will be remanded to the custody whence he was taken, for the purpose of being deported to China.