¶1Habeas Cowes (§ 75*) — Rbtubn—Requisites and Sufficiency.
¶2Returns to writs of habeas corpus obtained on behalf of immigrants upon petitions alleging their illegal detention by an inspector, which allege no facts, but merely as a conclusion of law that the respondent had the right to detain the petitioners, held insufficient.
¶3[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Dec. Dig. § 75.*]
¶4Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
¶5Proceedings by Sadie Shaheen and Kelly J. Shaddy against Peter H. Stretton and John Clark for writs of habeas corpus. From orders granting the writs, respondents appeal.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7Charlton R. Beattie and W. J. Waguespack, for appellant.
¶8Chas. I. Denechaud, for appellees.
¶9Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
¶12In neither of these appeals was there any bond given. If intended to be taken by the United States, or at the direction of any department of the government, as provided for in Rev. St. § 1001 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901. p. 713), it is not shown by the record.
¶13The return in each case of Peter H. Stretton, “captain and inspector in charge of immigration office at the port of New Orleans,” and John Clark, captain of the steamer Chickahominy, sets forth only conclusions of law, and there was no necessity to traverse. In the said returns Stretton claims that by virtue of the authority vested in him as “inspector in charge at the port of New Orleans,” he “was fully authorized to appoint, constitute, and qualify the special board of inquixy alleged in the plaintiff’s petition,” referring to Act Cong. Feb. 20, 1907, c. 1134, § 24, 34 Stat. 906 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 461).
¶14The returns further allege that the respondent had the right to detain Abdala Shaddy and Georges Shaheen “for examination by the special board of inquiry whenever that hoard should be legally constituted,” but alleged no facts. The Circuit Court examined the matter. and found in favor of the petitioner, and against the sufficiency of the said returns.
¶15As we agree with the Circxiit Court in its findings, the judgment of the Circuit Court in each of the above-entitled cases is affirmed.