wherein JlJ.l(Y. resjde, theJaws excludingimmigrllnts who llre'Chinese< laborers.areinapplicable toa person born in this country, and subject to the its, government, even though his parents were not citizens, nor entitled to become under the laws providing for the naturalization of aliens; that any person alleging to be a citizen of the United States, and desiriNg to return to his country from a f?reign land.. and that he is prevented from doing so without due process of law, and' who on that ground applies to any United States court for a w,rit of habeas corpus, is entitled to have a hearing Bnd a judicial determinationof the facts so alleged; ,and that no act ofcongress can be \:inderstood or construed as a bar to such hearing and judiCialdetermination. The evidence in the case shows that it is an admitted fact that the appellant is of Chinese parentage. < 'His appearance anq. language proves that he.}sinall in: the one matter of his Americall. He feMmes that legal citizenship; a Chinamlin,and not he was born in San Francisco in 1877, that he was taken to China by his 'parMtsw,ht111 he was uu'Uerlhree yeats of age, and tHat heremttlned October, 1890. ' Under the citcumstlIDcesstatEid by'hiin,'butlittle;'if any';crede,nce should be given as t9 :the place of his ,birth, 'ahdhe is'coi:'rbborated on this vital point only by the testimony of other Chinese, persons, who cOlifessedly have seen' him bula few times, alid' can give only hearsa1eviderice. There eertainly iariot Slisclosed in'this tecordanJ?thing to justify this court in reversing judgment of thedi'strict court, on the gr6nttd 'of error in its 'findings' of fact.' '" · . ·, . , 'The judgment appealed from is' affirmed, and the cause remanded for su.ch further proceedings as be necessary.' ,
LEE Foo tl. SAlliE.· LuM SUEY,
CHEONG 'D. SAME'.,
(Oircuit Court of AppeaZs, Ninth. Circuit. January 25,:1892,)
Appeals from the Distriot Court of the United States for trict of California. Petl tion for writs of habeas corp1t8. Petitioners appeal from lIu!ondingtbem. 4 ffi l'med. .. . Chat'lea L. Weller, for appellants. Wi G. Asst. U. S.Atty. Before DEADY, HANFORD, and HA WLEY, DIstrict Judges
HANFORD. Distdet Judge. ,The opinioflofthiscourt in the clJseot 066 F()ok 8ing v. 1].8., 49 Fed.,Rep. 146, (justq1rd,) disposeso.faU thequeSoo tiona of law in these cases. . ,1s nQt sUfficient.to.inake a case in favor of the:ap!>ellant soclearils'to',warriult this court in rev'ersing thejudgment of district court upontlle facts. As to each of the cases we cOhsider thattheevidence,aa a whole; 'does t10trnakeas good a case for the
UNITED STATES V.EBBS.
it might be reasonably expected a man would make out in his native city, after time for ample preparation; and the case is such as any impostor could easily make. We hold that when, upon a candid consideration of all the evidpnce in a case, there appears to be room for a difference of opinion as to the material facts in issue, this court ought not to reverse the jUdgment on a question of fact alone. Judgments affirmed and causes remanded.
(Distrlct Oourt, W. D. North OaroUna. November Term, 1881.)
UNITED STATES MARSHALS-'-FEES FOR ARRESTS.
;A.:United States marshal who reads a warrant·of arrest to a person charged with crimej';but afterwards permits him to go free upon his verbal promise, to appear liefore the commission'er for examination, is not entitled to a fee for the arrest.
The acceptance by.aUnited Stateac0tnmlssionerof an appearance bO,nd, tendered by' the ,f.rtends of an absent offender, supersedes a warrant.ofarrest theretofore issued,iand the marshal i9not entitled to'a fee fora subsequent arrest upon tliesame . . warraHt, ]lnder the verbal direction of the commissioner. 11. SAME-DuTY TO ARREST PROMPTLY.. . ..' . A deputy United liltates marshal who has a warrant of 'arrest is bound to be prepared at all tiIlles to execute the lIatlle, and if he comes into the presence of the accused,. but does not arrest him, because the warrant was left at home, he a not entitled to'fees for time subsequently spent in making the arresl;v . 4. S..u m....GuARDING PRISONB:R.·. W,ben a Unit1;ld Stal'.e8!l9mmissioner holds an accused person to trial.be.. f.ore the court, and verbally CouuriitS him to the custody of the marshal until bail is obtained, the latter is ·entitled· to fees for guarding him, as' he bas no authority to cOIllmjthim to jail without a mUtimus. The marshal is sole ju(lge as to wbetl!er a guard is necessary while the prisoner is before the commissioner.
At Law. Prosecution on a criminal charge. iaxationof costs. V. S.. Lusk, in support Of rule. O. M. McL01td, for marshal.
On a rule for the re-
DICK,:pistrict Judge. The exceptions presented in the affidavit to the taxed before the commissioner are as follows: (1) The; marshal chtlrges for service of the warrant when there was DQ valid service. (2) The marshal charges expenses for 14 days in endeavoring to arrest the defendant, when the defendant might have been easilyaTrested, as he made no effort to evade the process of the law. (3) The marshal charges for .attending the court of the commissioner, and guarding the'defendant. when there was no necessity for such service, as the defendant was upon bail. As to the first exception, it appears in evidence tbat the deputy-marshal, while he had the warrant in his hands, met the defendant, and read the warrant to him,and told him that he- was under arrest. The .defendant af once submitted tathe authority of, the -.who told him that he might de!>art from custody if he would .promise to