United States v. Don On

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

United States v. Don On

49 F. 569, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1653

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York

DecidedNovember 20, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 F. 569 (United States v. Don On) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Don On, 49 F. 569, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1653 (circtndny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Coxe, District Judge.

The commissioner has found that in the spring of 1891, the petitioner, a Chinese laborer, was at Toronto, Canada, and thereafter came to this country. This finding cannot be reviewed upon this proceeding, and must be taken as an established fact. I have reexamined the law in the light of these facts and am of the opinion that the case of Wan Shing v. U. S., 140 U. S. 424, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, is controlling upon all questions presented upon the argument. I have read the decision of Commissioner Strong and concur with his conclusions. The petitioner was in Canaria and could not legally enter this country. Application denied.

Note. The marshal made return that ho was unable to execute the judgment of the court, for the reason that he had no money with which to pay the “head-tax” charged by the Canadian government. Due notice of this fact having been given to the department of justice, and no funds having been provided, it was afterwards, on motion of the United States district attorney, ordered that the petitioner, Don On, be discharged from custody.

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

Coxe, District Judge.

The commissioner has found that in the spring of 1891, the petitioner, a Chinese laborer, was at Toronto, Canada, and thereafter came to this country. This finding cannot be reviewed upon this proceeding, and must be taken as an established fact. I have reexamined the law in the light of these facts and am of the opinion that the case of Wan Shing v. U. S., 140 U. S. 424, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, is controlling upon all questions presented upon the argument. I have read the decision of Commissioner Strong and concur with his conclusions. The petitioner was in Canaria and could not legally enter this country. Application denied.

Note. The marshal made return that ho was unable to execute the judgment of the court, for the reason that he had no money with which to pay the “head-tax” charged by the Canadian government. Due notice of this fact having been given to the department of justice, and no funds having been provided, it was afterwards, on motion of the United States district attorney, ordered that the petitioner, Don On, be discharged from custody.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F. 569, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-don-on-circtndny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack