Knopf v. State, 84 Ind. 316; State .v. Shields, 8 Blackf. 151; State v. McPherson, 9 Iowa, 1)3; Reed v. :people, 1 Parker, Crim. R. 481, and many other cases. See Bisb. Crim. Proc. § 432, and cases cited. The demurrers to counts are slUltained.
stantlve Is Qne whIch Is completetn Itself, and Is not dependent upon another. Where several acts relate to the same transaction, and together constitut.e but one ottense, they may be charged in· the same count, but not otherwise. Each count in an indictment must stand or fall by itself. The jury cannot find a verdict of guilty as to one part and not guilty as to another part of the same count. This strictness of pleading is necessary, in order that the accused may not be in doubt as to the specific charge against which he is called to defend, and that the court may know what sentence to pronounce." The Sll-me rule is laid down by the supreme court of Indiana in
In re LUM MN YING.
(DIstrict COurt, D. Oregon.
1. CONPLIQ'l'; WS-("'HINESE MARRIAGEB-VALID ITY. A J;IllU'l'111gesolemnized in China according to the laws. and customs thereot;bnt while the bridegroom Is in America, is not valid in America.
2. CHINESE'-ExCLUSION ACTS;
February 2, 1894.)
Where a woman, married according to Chinese laws to a Chinaman then in tlw United StateEl, is brought to the United States by direction of her hU!lbaJ;ld.,both acting in good faith, she is entitled toland, there being . no evidenlllJ that she is IL prOliltitute.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner discharged. B. B. and G. W. P. Joseph; for petitioner. DanieIR..Murphy, for the United States. BELLINGER, District It is admitted that the person claiming to be the husband of the petitioner is a merchant doing business in this city. Is the petitioner his wife? He testified that she was betrothed to him at two years of age, and that su months ago the marriage was solemnized according to the laws of China. lie fqrtb.er testified that he had never seen his wife until her here. Upon thislaiit statement, I concluded to remand the petitioner. without further inquiry, but deferred to the urgent request of her attorneys to .be heard as to this alleged China ,marriage, and as to the bona fidoes of the marriage transaction. The onlY authority cited as to what constitutes the solemnization of marriageu.llder Chinese laws is an article in the Encyclopedia llritannicaby Prof. R. K. Douglas, professor of Chinese in King's College, London. to this authority, marriage in China Is an which the most concerned have nothinl; to do. T}1e duty of filial piety is said to be the final object of Chinese religi01,ls teaching, and, under its influence, parental will is a supreJjD:e authority, from which there is no appeal. Marriage, therefore,i.$,not the result of acquailltancesb.ip. "The bridegroom
IN RE LUM: LIN YING.
rarely sees his betrothed until she has become his wife." The preliminaries are entirely arranged by professional go-betweens with the parents and families of the respective parties. The correspondence between the two. thus conducted, is in writing, and is of the briefest character. If the arrangements proceed satisfactorily, the particulars of the engagement are committed to writing upon duplicate cards. These are sewn together, and the ceremony is com· plete. The bride journeys to the home of her husband, who may then see her for the first time. This is the system under which the marriage relied upon in this case is claimed to have taken place, and is consistent with such marriage. The fact that such a marriage did take place, as testified to by the parties, is not contradicted, and is consistent with all the circumstances appearing in the cpse. If the parties were married according to the laws of China, such marriage is valid here. Parsons on Contracts says that "it seems to be generally admitted, and is certainly a doctrine of English and American law, that a marriage which is valid in the place where it is contracted is valid everywhere. The necessity and propriety of this rule are so obvious and so stringent that it can hardly be called in question." This rule is subject to the qualification that a marriage made elsewhere would not be acknowledged as valid in a state, the laws of which forbade it as incestuous. Meyer's Federal Decisions says the general rule is undoubtedly that a marriage good hy the law of the place of solemnization is good everywhere. At the time of the marriage in question in this case, the husband was domiciled in the United States. 'I.'his raises a question, as to "llether China is the place of solemnization of the marriage. While the place of solemnization governs, by what rule shall such place be determined, when the parties are at the time within diffenmt jurisdictions? It is doubtful whether this is a China marriage. It is not enough, in my judgment, that such a marriage is valid under the laws of China. I am of opinion that it must not only be valid under such laws, but, to be valid elsewhere, must have solemnized within the jurisdiction of those laws. The parties in this case appear to have acted with the utmost g<JOd faith. On the 7th of last October the husband consulted a firm of lawyers of high standing in the city, touching the right of hi:,: wife to land here. The subject was carefully considered by them. Acting on their advice. a certificate was prepared and forwarded to China, identifying the husband, and setting forth that the petitioner was his wife. and that such certificate was intended to evidence her right to land here, by virtue of such relation. Money was forwarded for the journey, which she undertook in pursuance of the advice given her husband here. There is no doubt as to this. I have no right to assume, upon the whispered suggestions made on the authority of some of her countrymen, that she is a prostitute. There is no testimony tending to prove anything of the kind. Nor is there anything in the case calculated to arouse a suspicion against her. If, as the testimony shows, she is a girl of 18 years of age, who has made this journey in good faith under the circnmstance@
1 have mentioned. she does not belong to any class of.· persons within the exclusion acts of congress,and her rejection would be a cruel ;injustice. 1 am aware that there is danger of imposition in cases like this, but that danger exists in all cases where Chinese persons are landed, and must continue to exist until exclusion is made absolute. The petitioner is discharged.
UNITED STATES v. A LOT OF' JEWELRY, ETC. (District Court. E. D. New York. January 9, 1894.)
CUSTOMS!DUTrES--VIOLATION OF LAWS-FoUFEITURES-REPEAL OF STATUTES.
Rev. St. § 3082, relating to unlawful importations, is not a purely crimiDal statute, but, on the contrary, authorizes a suit in rem to forfeit the goodsiand it was not repealed, either by the act of February 27, 1877, or by section 9 of the act of June 10, 1890. U. S. v. A (Rev. Lot 13 Blatchf. 65, criticised.
AniDformation of forfeiture underr Rev. St. § 3082, is sufficient to support a verdict when it contains averments that certain persons named received the goods, knowing them to have been imported contrary to law; that they were seized' by the collector within the district; that they were subject to'duty, were brought from a foreign port into the port of New York, without being Invoiced or entered at the custom house, and without paymeQt of any duty; and that they were imported contrary'to law, by persons named, fraUdulently and knowingly. An ·information of forfeiture under Rev. St. § 3082, is capable of amendment, if objected to; and, when there is no demurrer or application for particulars before the trial, it will not, after verdict, be judged of with the strictness applicable ,to an indictment.
SAME-INFORMATION-CRIMINAL RULES NOT ApPLICABLE.
SAME-BURDEN OF PROOF-"PROBABLE CAUSE."
In section 21 of the customs administrative act of 1890, which casts the burden of proof, In cases of seizure, upon the person ciaiming the goods, provided that probable cause for the prosecution is shown, the words "probable cause" are to be understood as Importing circumstances which create susplclon. Boyd v. U. S., 6 Sup. at. 524, 116 U. S. 616, distinguished.
EVIDENCE-COMPETENcy-IDENTITY OF PERSONS-PHOTOGRAPHS.
It Is competent, for the purpose of proving the Identity' of a person alleged to bave passed under different names in different places, to show a photograph to witnesses who knew the person passing under the names, respectively, and allow each to testify that it looked like the man he had so known.
At Law. Information of forfeiture, under Rev. St. § 3082, to secure the condemnation of certain jewelry, alleged to have been brought into the United States contrary to law. The court directed a verdict for the United States, and the cause is now heard on a motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment. Denied. The information, omitting the caption, was as follows:
"On the 20th· day of June, in the year 1893, comes Jesse Johnson, as the attorney of the United States of America for the eastern district of New York, in a cause of seizure and forfeiture of the property, under the revenue 8Jld customs laws of the said United States, and informing the court: That on the 5th day of May, and the 10th and 16th days of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, Francis Hendricks, collector of customs for the port and collection district of New York, seized on land, in the