Page images
PDF
EPUB

sole attorney of record of the plaintiff--a position in which, as observed already, the nunc pro tunc order did not purport to place him.

If Mr. Lee desired to appear at the trial as counsel for the plaintiff, an order of the court was not necessary to enable him to do so.

We think, therefore, that the objections taken by the counsel for the respondent must prevail, and the appeal from the order denying a new trial must be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Cases Decided Without Written Opinions,

AND NOT OTHERWISE REPORTED, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT VOLUME OF THE JOURNAL

FEBRUARY 23, 1878.

[ocr errors]

5765—Zeinwaldt vs. Sacramento City R. R. Co., ultra vires. 5527—People vs. Union Lumber Association, ultra vires. 5119–Moulton vs. Parks, to restrain the building of a dam. 5783—Lewis vs. Foster, 16 and 36 Sections. 5670--Schatt vs. Odell, foreclosure. 5658-Clark vs. Jones, accounting. 5620— Wallace vs. Hanna, restitution. 5612—Estate of Goller, administration. 5612–Hellman vs. Gravel, administration. 5777McClatchy vs. Sacramento County, to compel repay

ment of money. 5775—Williams vs. Williams, ejectment, married women. 5750-Stokes vs. O'Gier, trust. 5061–San Francisco vs. City Gas Co., Act of 1863. 4971—Wristen vs. Meyer, trover. 5420—Campbell vs. California Ins. Co., insuranoe policy. 5497—Santa Cruz R. R. Co. vs. Cox, judgment by consent. 10321–People vs. Barton.

[ocr errors]

10320—People vs. Henderson & Sampson.

5563–Seale vs. Supervisors, Act of April 4, 1870. 10289—People vs. Atherton. 4014-Unger vs. Roper, see opinion filed Nov. 6, 1877. 5733—Wallace vs. Miller, modified. 5574—Strother vs. Diefendorff, Jimeno grant. 5838-Laidlau vs. French. 5800—Land and Loan Association vs. Stoneman. 10340—People vs. Thompson. 10326–People vs. Cowdry. 10328_People vs. Kelly. 10329—People vs. Moore. 4389—Kellogg vs. Rankin. 6106—Plummer vs. Alexander, homestead. 6056—Gharky vs. Werner, will. 6091—Sampson vs. Stickney, lease. 6085–Jackson vs. Stone, water rights. 6004- Austin vs. Austin, divorce. 6041-Reynolds vs. Groneville, restitution. 5944— Miller vs. Henderson, to quiet title. 10348—People vs. Bevans. 10353—People vs. Felix. 10334—People vs. Bailey. 10347—People vs. Fong Ah Tuck. 10325—People vs. Carrick. 10344-People vs. Butts. 6065-Robinson vs. Dwinelle, writ of prohibition. 6009–Bank of San Louis Obispo vs. Johnson, foreclosure. 6034—City of Stockton vs. Holden, street assessment. 6026–Cassner vs. Goldtree, landlord and tenant. 5794— Wiggins vs. McFarlane, ejectment. 5782–Kohlman vs. Hennessey, administration. 5714Estate of Keenan, administration. 5992--Hook vs. Henderson, suit on undertaking on appeal. 5946-Estate of Weeks, probate, homestead. 5929-Clark vs. Tecopa S. M. Co., account. 5910—Brown vs. Murray, filing of statement for new trial.

5905—Beaudry vs. City of Los Angeles, street assessment. 5623—Rosenfeld vs. Reay, foreclosure. 5607-People vs. S. P. R. R. Co., wharfage. 5611–Rogers vs. Watson, foreclosure. 5604—The Union Savings Bank vs. Nolan, to declare a

deed to be a mortgage. 5608--People vs. Hooper, wharfage. 5891-Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. vs. Brady, ejectment. 5803—Powers vs. Leith, to compel the execution of a deed. 5806—Harris vs. Walker, account. 5842—Prentice vs. Odd Fellows' Sav. and Com. Bank, lien

lands. 5840—Wilson vs. Player, damages. 5856—St. John vs. Meyerstein, breach of contract. 5857—Burkhart vs. Meyerstein, breach of contract. 5876—Sanchez vs. Temple, to set aside mortgage. 5888—Botsford vs. Howell, swamp lands. 5894-Bascom vs. Davis, pre-emption. 5479-Hendley vs. Petch, to quiet title. 5465-Head vs. Bell, landlord and tenant. 5428--Flatt vs. Rohrle, restitution. 5426—Dyer vs. Brandenstein, street assessment. 5784_Swamp Land District vs. Feran, recl'm assessment.

5938—Burns vs. Miller, State lands. 10343-People vs. Satello and Acosta.

5566—Young vs. San Francisco. 5510—Ambrose vs. Roper.

[ocr errors]

In the following cases rehearings have been granted since March 1, 1878:

Shaw vs. Wandesforde, Onena vs. Dewlaney, People vs. Jones, City of Stockton vs. Reid, DeCelis vs. McClay, Vilhoe vs. S. & I. R. Co., Cruz vs. Martinez, Johnson vs. Hellman, Hall vs. McLea, People vs. Felton, Hager vs. Spect, Winter vs. Belmont Mining Co., Snow vs. Kimmer, Dowd vs. Clark (as to interest), Zeinwaldt vs. Sacramento City R. R. Co., Raisch vs. San Francisco County.

And denied in the following cases:

Green vs. Campbell, Marquard vs. Wheeler, Lincoln vs. Alexander, Harris vs. Supervisors, Ferrea vs. P. M. S. S. Co., Spring Valley Water Co. vs. Ashbury, Spring Valley Water Co. vs. San Francisco, Bellings vs. Drew, Brady vs. King, Seale vs. Supervisors, Thompson vs. Corpstein, Hershey vs. Dennis.

United States Circuit Court, District of Oregon.

JULY, 1878.

IN RE SPENSER.

1. ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP-REQUISITES.-An alien, to be entitled to admission

to citizenship, must first prove that he has behaved as a man of good moral

character during all the period of his residence in the United States. 2. WHAT IS “Good MORAL CHARACTER”- PERJURY. – What constitutes good

moral character may vary in some respects in different times and places, but a person who commits perjury does not behave as a man of good moral character,

and is not therefore entitled to admission to citizenship. 3. A PARDON IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE in its operation, and

while it absolves the offender from the guilt of his offense and relieves him from the legal disabilities consequent thereon, it does not obliterate or wipe out the fact of the commission of the crime, so that it can not be made to appear

on an application to be admitted to citizenship. DEADY, J.:

William Spenser, an alien, applies to “be admitted to become a citizen of the United States," under Section 2165 of Revised Statutes. From the evidence it satisfactorily appears that he duly declared his intention, and has continuously resided in the United States—the State of Oregonat least since 1870. He is, therefore, entitled to be admitted to citizenship, if it appear that during such residence he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed towards the good order and happiness of the same. (Sec. 2165 supra, Sub. 3.)

The proof shows that the applicant has resided in Oregon, near the Dalles, for more than eight years; that in 1876, and after he had declared his intention, he was duly convicted in the Circuit Court of the State for Wasco County, of the crime of perjury, committed by swearing falsely as a witness in a case in said court, in which he was a party, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary; that after being in prison fifteen months and eight days, he was unqualifiedly pardoned by the Governor, upon, as the pardon recites, the petition of sundry citizens of Wasco County, and because it appeared that there were doubts as to his guilt, and unless he was released from prison there was danger that he would lose his homestead.

Upon this state of facts two questions arise: 1. Has the applicant“ behaved as a man of good moral character" within the meaning of the statute; and 2, What is the effect of the pardon in this respect ?

In the first place, during what time is the behavior of the applicant open to consideration? The statute-supra-declares: “It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien, that he has resided within the United States five years at least,

* and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character," etc. Is an alien who has behaved as a man of good moral character during the five years immediately preceding his application, but who has not so behaved during his residence in the United States prior thereto, entitled to admission ? I think not. The behavior of the applicant during all the time of his residence within the United States is material. The good of the country does not require, and it does not appear to be the policy of the law to promote the naturalization of aliens who have, at any time during their residence in the United States, behaved otherwise than as persons of good moral character. The citizenship of the country is sufficiently alloyed and debased by the presence of immoral natives, without the addition of those born in foreign countries.

The applicant must not simply have sustained a good rep

*

*

« PreviousContinue »