Ex parte Chin Chan On

W.D. Washington

Ex parte Chin Chan On

32 F.2d 828, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1239

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington

DecidedMay 15, 1929

DocketNo. 20068

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 F.2d 828 (Ex parte Chin Chan On) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Chin Chan On, 32 F.2d 828, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1239 (W.D. Wash. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

NETERER, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The contention on behalf of the petitioner that he did not sustain a polygamous status is not sustained, and that he believed in polygamy in China but not in the United States is not well taken; but aside from this question, perjury is established beyond any question, and perjury involves moral turpitude, and the general provision of the Immigration Act has application to the petitioner’s qualification (section 16, Act February 5, 1917; Title 8, § 152, USCA), and this has application on the right to re-enter. See, also, section 3, Act Feb. 5, 1917 (Title 8, § 136, USCA; section 4289¼b, C. S.).

The contention in argument on behalf of Chin Chan On that, having falsely testified, the correction of the testimony before the conclusion of the hearing purges the status, is not well taken, where the statement was made with the deliberate intention of misleading the immigration officers. The false testimony was not a statement made under misapprehension of fact and voluntarily corrected, but was a deliberate and preconceived plan for the purpose of testifying fraudulently and misleading the Board of Special Inquiry in determining the right of Lee Shee to enter. Kaneda v. United States (C. C. A.) 278 F. 694; In re Keizo Shibata (D. C.) 30 F.(2d) 942. See, also, In re Spenser, 22 Fed. Cas. 921, No. 13,234. He testified that this was agreed to by him and Lee Shee as strengthening her position on entry. The statement was willfully and designedly made. A willful assertion as to a material matter of fact by petitioner in the proceeding and being intended by him to mislead the Board of Special Inquiry is perjury. 2 Whart. C. L. § 1244 ; 2 Bish. N. Cr. Law, § 1013; State v. Smith, 63 Vt. 201, 22 A. 604; United States v. Conner, 25 Fed. Cas. 595, No. 14,847. Perjury is malum in se and malum prohibitum, and at civil and common law is classed as crimen falsi.

The act was willful, the oath was false and material to the inquiry, the proceeding semi-judicial, and there can be no doubt from this record that the motive, purpose, and intent were corrupt.

Writ is denied.

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

NETERER, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The contention on behalf of the petitioner that he did not sustain a polygamous status is not sustained, and that he believed in polygamy in China but not in the United States is not well taken; but aside from this question, perjury is established beyond any question, and perjury involves moral turpitude, and the general provision of the Immigration Act has application to the petitioner’s qualification (section 16, Act February 5, 1917; Title 8, § 152, USCA), and this has application on the right to re-enter. See, also, section 3, Act Feb. 5, 1917 (Title 8, § 136, USCA; section 4289¼b, C. S.).

The contention in argument on behalf of Chin Chan On that, having falsely testified, the correction of the testimony before the conclusion of the hearing purges the status, is not well taken, where the statement was made with the deliberate intention of misleading the immigration officers. The false testimony was not a statement made under misapprehension of fact and voluntarily corrected, but was a deliberate and preconceived plan for the purpose of testifying fraudulently and misleading the Board of Special Inquiry in determining the right of Lee Shee to enter. Kaneda v. United States (C. C. A.) 278 F. 694; In re Keizo Shibata (D. C.) 30 F.(2d) 942. See, also, In re Spenser, 22 Fed. Cas. 921, No. 13,234. He testified that this was agreed to by him and Lee Shee as strengthening her position on entry. The statement was willfully and designedly made. A willful assertion as to a material matter of fact by petitioner in the proceeding and being intended by him to mislead the Board of Special Inquiry is perjury. 2 Whart. C. L. § 1244 ; 2 Bish. N. Cr. Law, § 1013; State v. Smith, 63 Vt. 201, 22 A. 604; United States v. Conner, 25 Fed. Cas. 595, No. 14,847. Perjury is malum in se and malum prohibitum, and at civil and common law is classed as crimen falsi.

The act was willful, the oath was false and material to the inquiry, the proceeding semi-judicial, and there can be no doubt from this record that the motive, purpose, and intent were corrupt.

Writ is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F.2d 828, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-chin-chan-on-wawd-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack