Becharias v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Becharias v. United States

208 F. 143, 125 C.C.A. 359, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1685

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1913

DocketNo. 1,872

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 F. 143 (Becharias v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becharias v. United States, 208 F. 143, 125 C.C.A. 359, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1685 (7th Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HUMPHREY, District Judge.

Plaintiff in error was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for offering and giving $150 as a bribe to one Plumly, an immigration inspector, to induce him to make a recommendation based on false testimony for a rehearing in the case of one Kosmos, then under order of deportation by the Secretary of Commerce and Uabor; said order being addressed to the Commissioner of Immigration.

[1, 2] Under the law and the regulations of the department, which have the force of law, Plumly was an officer of the United States, and to make recommendation for or against a rehearing for an alien under order of deportation was in the line of his official duty: Until the man was actually deported, and while it was in the power of the de[144]*144partment to grant a rehearing, the proceeding was “pending” within the meaning of the law.

We find no error in the rulings of the trial court either on the sufifi- • ciency of the indictment or in the admission or rejection of evidence. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HUMPHREY, District Judge.

Plaintiff in error was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for offering and giving $150 as a bribe to one Plumly, an immigration inspector, to induce him to make a recommendation based on false testimony for a rehearing in the case of one Kosmos, then under order of deportation by the Secretary of Commerce and Uabor; said order being addressed to the Commissioner of Immigration.

[1, 2] Under the law and the regulations of the department, which have the force of law, Plumly was an officer of the United States, and to make recommendation for or against a rehearing for an alien under order of deportation was in the line of his official duty: Until the man was actually deported, and while it was in the power of the de[144]*144partment to grant a rehearing, the proceeding was “pending” within the meaning of the law.

We find no error in the rulings of the trial court either on the sufifi- • ciency of the indictment or in the admission or rejection of evidence. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F. 143, 125 C.C.A. 359, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becharias-v-united-states-ca7-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack