United States v. Wong Ock Hong

Citations

• 179 F. 1004
• 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 318

Syllabus

<p>1. Aliens (§ 32*) — Deportation Proceedings — Appeal—Certification of •Judgment.</p> <p>Failure of the commissioner in Chinese deportation proceedings to eertify the judgment to the District Court on appeal is not a jurisdictional defect; the court being authorized to direct certification and require transmission of the judgment.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Aliens, Dec. Dig. § 32.*]</p> <p>2. Aliens (§ 32*) — Deportaiton Proceedings — Appeal—Notice.</p> <p>Where a notice of appeal in Chinese deportation proceedings, though entitled in the District Court, was nevertheless left with the commissioner and transmitted with the papers in the case, the fact that the notice was entitled in the District Court, and not before the commissioner, was not a jurisdictional defect.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Aliens, Dec. Dig. § 32.*]</p> <p>3. Aliens (§ 32*) — Deportation Proceedings — Appeal—Trial de Novo.</p> <p>A Chinaman’s appeal from a commissioner’s order of deportation is triable de novo before the District Judge, and not on the record made before the commissioner.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Aliens, Dec. Dig. § 32.*]</p> <p>4. Aliens (§ 32*) — Chinese—Deportation—Citizenship—Evidence.</p> <p>In Chinese deportation proceedings, evidence held to establish defendant’s right to remain in the country.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Aliens, Dec. Dig. § 32.*</p> <p>Citizenship of the Chinese, see notes to Gee Fook Sing v. United States, 1 C. C. A. 212; Lee Sing Far v. United States, 35 C. C. A. 332.)</p>