Tom Wing Art v. Carmichael

Ninth Circuit

Tom Wing Art v. Carmichael

117 F.2d 158, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1941

DocketNo. 9564

StatusPublished

This text of 117 F.2d 158 (Tom Wing Art v. Carmichael) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tom Wing Art v. Carmichael, 117 F.2d 158, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197 (9th Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to § 19 of the Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 889, 8 U.S.C.A. § 155,¹ the Secretary of Labor issued a warrant for the arrest of appellant, a Chinese alien, and — after appellant had been arrested and given a hearing — a warrant for his deportation to China, because of his having been (1) found connected with the management of a house of prostitution; (2) found receiving, sharing in or deriving benefit from the earnings of a prostitute; and (3) found managing a house of prostitution or music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather. Appellant petitioned for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus, which, after a hearing, was discharged. From the order discharging the writ this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant’s immigration record — a record of the proceedings which culminated in the issuance of the warrant for appellant’s deportation — was incorporated in and made part of his petition for habeas corpus, was received in evidence by the court below, and is the only evidence in the case. [159]*159Therefrom it appears that the proceedings were in all respects lawful and regular, that the hearing which preceded the issuance of the warrant for appellant’s deportation was a fair hearing, and that the Secretary’s findings were amply supported by evidence.

The assertion, in appellant’s brief, that the record contains no evidence that appellant managed or was connected with the management of a house of prostitution or received, shared in or derived benefit from the earnings of a prostitute, is unwarranted and false. The record reeks with such evidence. Appellant’s petition should have been denied. The writ of habeas corpus should not have been issued. Having been issued, it was properly discharged.

Order affirmed.

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

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to § 19 of the Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 889, 8 U.S.C.A. § 155,¹ the Secretary of Labor issued a warrant for the arrest of appellant, a Chinese alien, and — after appellant had been arrested and given a hearing — a warrant for his deportation to China, because of his having been (1) found connected with the management of a house of prostitution; (2) found receiving, sharing in or deriving benefit from the earnings of a prostitute; and (3) found managing a house of prostitution or music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather. Appellant petitioned for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus, which, after a hearing, was discharged. From the order discharging the writ this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant’s immigration record — a record of the proceedings which culminated in the issuance of the warrant for appellant’s deportation — was incorporated in and made part of his petition for habeas corpus, was received in evidence by the court below, and is the only evidence in the case. [159]*159Therefrom it appears that the proceedings were in all respects lawful and regular, that the hearing which preceded the issuance of the warrant for appellant’s deportation was a fair hearing, and that the Secretary’s findings were amply supported by evidence.

The assertion, in appellant’s brief, that the record contains no evidence that appellant managed or was connected with the management of a house of prostitution or received, shared in or derived benefit from the earnings of a prostitute, is unwarranted and false. The record reeks with such evidence. Appellant’s petition should have been denied. The writ of habeas corpus should not have been issued. Having been issued, it was properly discharged.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F.2d 158, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tom-wing-art-v-carmichael-ca9-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack