Lum Bing Wey v. United States

W.D. Texas

Lum Bing Wey v. United States

201 F. 379, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1033

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Texas

DecidedDecember 24, 1912

DocketNo. 382

StatusPublished

This text of 201 F. 379 (Lum Bing Wey v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lum Bing Wey v. United States, 201 F. 379, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1033 (W.D. Tex. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

MAXEY, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [L 2] In this case the court is of the opinion (1) that the certificate of George E. Johnson is inadmissible in evidence; (2) that if the certificates of [381]*381Frederick S. Platt, clerk, be admissible, there is nothing in the record to show that the appellant is the person who was arrested and discharged by Commissioner Johnson on October 13, 1897.

[3] In Chinese cases the burden is upon the one asserting his right to remain in the United States to establish such right by affirmative proof. Neither the appellant himself nor any other person attempted to show that he is the Chinese person named in the certificates of Clerk Platt. For the reason stated, the order of the commissioner, deporting the appellant, should be, and it is hereby, affirmed. Ordered accordingly.

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

MAXEY, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [L 2] In this case the court is of the opinion (1) that the certificate of George E. Johnson is inadmissible in evidence; (2) that if the certificates of [381]*381Frederick S. Platt, clerk, be admissible, there is nothing in the record to show that the appellant is the person who was arrested and discharged by Commissioner Johnson on October 13, 1897.

[3] In Chinese cases the burden is upon the one asserting his right to remain in the United States to establish such right by affirmative proof. Neither the appellant himself nor any other person attempted to show that he is the Chinese person named in the certificates of Clerk Platt. For the reason stated, the order of the commissioner, deporting the appellant, should be, and it is hereby, affirmed. Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 F. 379, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lum-bing-wey-v-united-states-txwd-1912.