TOM WING ART
v.
CARMICHAEL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the immigration record contained sufficient evidence to support the deportation warrant and that the habeas corpus writ was properly discharged.
An alien was issued a deportation warrant for being connected with prostitution. The alien sought a writ of habeas corpus, which was discharged by the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Immigration Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
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. *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.