In re Ho Quai Sin

84 F. 310, 1898 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 7, 1898
DocketNo. 11,401
StatusPublished

This text of 84 F. 310 (In re Ho Quai Sin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Ho Quai Sin, 84 F. 310, 1898 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60 (N.D. Cal. 1898).

Opinion

DE HAVEN, District Judge.

The special referee was justified in rejecting the positive testimony of the petitioner and the other witnesses, given in her behalf, under the principle of law declared in Quock Ting v. U. S., 140 U. S. 417, 11 Sup. Ct. 733, 851, and the cases referred to in1 that opinion. When first examined by the customs officers, on board the steamer Coptic, the petitioner stated that she was born in China, but had been told to report her birthplace as San Francisco, Cal. The fact that such statement was made is suffi-ficiently shown bv a credible witness, who acted as interpreter on that occasion, and may be considered in determining the credibility of the other witnesses, who testified that the petitioner was born here.' [311]*311In the face of the petitioner’s former statement that she was born in China, the court is not bound to gire credit to her present testimony, nor to the evidence of other witnesses who testify that she was born iú this country. If there was any reason to believe the statement which she in fact made to the customs officers when examined by them in relation to her right to land at the port of San Francisco was not properly interpreted, or that she did not upon that occasion fully understand the questions to which she gave answers, the question presented would be entirely different. Petitioner remanded to the custody whence she was taken, for the purpose of deportation to China.

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

Related

Quock Ting v. United States
140 U.S. 417 (Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 F. 310, 1898 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ho-quai-sin-cand-1898.