*2
CHULEE,
Before ALS
EVANS,
Judges.
SPARKS, Circuit
EVANS,
Judge (after stating
Circuit
above).
facts as
legal questions
involved
stat-
queries:
ed
the form of two
deportable
First. Is an alien
under Sec-
(8
tion
Title
155),
U. S. C. USCA §
provides
“any
for the
convicted,
alien who was
or who admits the
commission, prior
entry,
felony
of a
involving
other crime or misdemeanor
moral
turpitude,” because of a conviction in the
counterfeiting,
United States
which con-
viction occurred nineteen
after his first
years prior
reentry?
three
Does
Second.
an alien enter
United
meaning
inspection within the
States without
U. S. C. 155 USCA
§
§
[8
155]) subjecting
him to
there-
falsely
for, when
states to
inspector upon reentry
ishe
a nat-
uralized citizen of the United States and
thereby
interrogation by
avoids
inspector?
The district court answered the second
question in the affirmative and dismissed the
petition for
corpus.
Judge
habeas
Wilker
son
question
first
nega
answered the
in the
basing
tive,
his decision on what he believed
weight
judicial
be the
opinions.
of divided
express
He did not
personal opinion
question,
but said:1
question
“The
is one which has not been
Supremo
decided
either the
Court of the
United
Appeals
States or the Circuit Court of
* * *
for the Seventh Circuit.
“It
that this
has been
against
decided
the United States
the Cir-
cuit
Appeals
Court of
of two circuits. A
District Court, in my opinion,
accept
that as the
of authority and should
it,
follow unless and until a different rule is
laid
Supreme
down
Court or
Appeals
Court
of this Circuit.”
passed
Courts which have
ques-
on both
tions have differed in their conclusions. This
court has been
agree
unable to
upon the cor-
rect answer
question.
to'either
part
applicable
of the'statute
the facts set
query
forth
the first
reads:
“any alien who was convicted, or who admits
commission, prior
f elony
John Elliott Byrne, of Chicago, 111.,for
other crime or
involving
misdemeanor
appellant.
* * *
turpitude
shall,
the warrant
Thomas
Ilealy,
Dodd
111.,
of Chicago,
appellee.
1 Orally.
removal of the
Labor, be taken
cus-
Secretary
o.f
by extend-
States, however,
provided
tody
deported.”
privilege of
to him the
of
deportable
Cases
hold that
lawfully entered the
open
to all who have
may have
turpitude
involving moral
'fense
residing
purpose
*3
States
been committed in the United
Onpe citizen, the alién-
permanently.
here
limit
abroad are
collected.2 Cases
here
subject
bom.is not
to
referred
the commission of the offense
are also
those committed abroad
statute to
for
deter
The
matter
one
entire
here collected.3
Government,
mination
the United States
matter,
Congress
spoken on
having
ques-
on this
conclusion
reaching our
In
'
subject or at
legislate
may not
courts
so
done
majority
this court
tion, the
for that
tempt
judgments
to substitute
reasoning.
their
assumptions and
following
on the
Congress.
and continu-
Entry
States
into the United
language
statute, it
studying
In
of this
not nat-
are
afterwards
residence herein
ous
significant
specified
is
to note that the crimes
pos-
alien
rights
an
ural nor inalienable
people of the Unit-
are those familiar
enjoyed by suffer-
sesses,
privileges
are
States;
States—“felony,” “misdemeanor.”
ed
v. U.
Johannessen
ance of the United
turpitude” is a fa-
“involving
phrase
moral
613, 56
227, 240, 32
L.
S. Ct.
S., 225 U. S.
the United States.
miliar
courts of
terrain the
words,
States
the United
other
Ed. 1066. In
persua-
language
adopted is rather
thus
permission
enter
may deny
an alien
-
strange that
it would indeed
sive.
For
altogether, and likewise
United States
de-
Congress
phrasing
from its
alien
may remove the
United States
might be
alien
for which
fine
offenses
right to
absolute
fit. This
it sees
borders as
the American
language of
removed, in the
well as the
entry
alien, as
deny
only offens-
court, if
lawyer and the American
boundaries, carries
its
to remove him
foreign coun-
in a
committed
the alien
es
condi-
impose
lesser
it the
with
try
be included.
were to
or to
right to enter
upon
tions
good
upon his
stay
conditional
his
here
make
291,
Frick,
Lewis
233 U.
34 S.
v.
S.
Ct.
respect
law,
his non-
behavior,
Day,
488,
967,
58 L. Ed.
and Claussen v.
279
laws of the land.
criminal
violation
758,
354,
49
73 L. Ed.
S.
power to deal with
its
Congress has exercised
“entry”
above-quoted
in the
word
as used
subject
restricted
and has limited and
subsequent
was
include a
section
held to
both the alien’s
to enter and
Why
original entry.
then
as the
well
Responding
entered.
remain after he has
meaning
holding
should courts restrict its
rising
sentiment,
public
tide
(cid:127)to a
before the
offense
be committed
must
past
years,
has, during
fifteen
made these
original entry? Finally, there is no reason—
specific
more
restrictions
limitations and
between
of-
for the distinction
like
basis
voice
authoritative
drastic.
same
those commit-
fenses committed abroad
has,
what seems to be-
United
we make
When
in the
States.
ted
United
regard
the welfare of both the
reasonable
assume,
course,
we
ap-
this statement
States, de-
people
of the United
alien and
would
pellant
practiced
be excludable had he
has
one
an alien who
committed
clared that
counterfeiting in Cuba. Are not' the same
designated crimes, all of which are of-
several
justifying
present
reasons
his exclusion
if he
reprehensible
fensive and
and involve
United States ?
counterfeited
The time
turpitude,
be excluded from
United
shall
limitations
the statute no doubt
in the
are
words,
provided
In other
States.
Limitations,
nature
of Statute
which has
by sufferance,
the alien who is
and who
support
sound reason to
it. But a distinc-
guest, betrays
speak, a
confi-
is,
place
tion based
where the crime is
permission
was evidenced
dence which
is one which offers no
committed
rational ex-
enter,
commits an
crime.
when he
offensive
planation for
appel-
the distinction which
betrayal
terminates
of confidence
attempted to
lant has
make.
stay-
privilege
His
right to remain here'.
length
It
is not the
of the alien’s resi-
Protection
be revoked.
thereafter
significant.
States that is
in the United
dence
status has
What controls
fact
(C.
A.)
2
rel. Medichv. Burmaster
C.
2 U. S. ex
4
(C.
F.(2d)
Nagle
A.)
F.(2d)
during
C.
57; Bendel
all the
continued
resided
(C.
Tayokichi
1129;
Yamada
R.
57 A. L.
Weedin
alien,
enjoyed
As
States.
Tillinghast
(D. C.)
F.(2d)
A.)
455; Gomes v.
C.
privileges and immunities which
F.(2d) 935.
certain
A.)
F.(2d)
Wong
(C.
704;
Carr
C.
3 Wilson v.
not have been his had he been a citi-
would
A.)
(C.
377;
C.
Browne
Yow v. Weedin
hand,
sueh alien he
other
zen. On
A.)
931.
Zurbrick
Secretary
tion, shall,
the warrant
subject
deportation if
when
deport-
Labor,
custody
he taken into
Under the of
removal.
for his
provide
saw fit
* * »”
155.)
§
USCA
on the ed.
Congress enacted
legislation wMeh
upon his
depend
stay
made to
subject, his
deception
The character
flout
fit to
good
If he saw
own
behavior.
significant.
It
under
hero
consideration
gave him shel-
country which
tho
the laws of
of de-
to a matter
went
money or
counterfeiting its
ter,
engage
examination
officer’s
incident in the
tail—an
exclusion
savings stamps, then Ms
its war
merely a case
the applicant.
conduct.
improper
his own
result of
was the
falsifica-
falsifying. The
applicant’s
tho
distinguishing be-
any basis
bo
If
any inspection.
If there
vitals of
wont
those
abroad
committed
tween offenses
citizen of
appellant were a
seem
States, it
fact,
committed in the United
required.
there was
*4
viewed
might well have
Congress
offensively
exceed-
inspector would have
nat-
For
reprehensible.
more
latter
citizen
inspected
as
a
he
ed Ms
abroad,
alien
counterfeiting
urally,
entrant
satisfying
himself
after
would
which
over
while conduct
Only
aliens
nec-
inspection a citizen.
irksome,
less
enthusiastic,
be
hardly
be
ap-
essary.
inquiry
preliminary
by Congress than
of action
provocative
less
pellant’s
requisite
a
de-
status was
citizen
the Unit-
in
pastime
in a similar
indulging
inspection
needed.
termine whether
ed States.
of a
deception, therefore, was
Appellant’s
pursue
of an
however,
the avoidance
idle to
nature which
in
is,
resulted
It
motivated
inspection.
reasons
possible
probable
or
leg-
passing the
Congresses
the various
necessity, of
as
wisdom,
well
subject of
enacted on
islation
entering
States
requiring an
alien
may be fair-
surely,
passing, it
tion.
But
Regu-
undergo
inspection
apparent.
is
an
are better
persuasively said that there
ly and
immigration would be
lation and control of
immigrant
closing the door
reasons
inspec-
impossible
without examination
than for exclud-
who
a criminal record
incoming
If the
tion of the
aliens.
sections
ing
illiterate,
pauper,
he is
one because
or
are dis-
aliens who
the statute which exclude
of the color of
because
skin.
eased,
or
to he
persons,
insane
are
criminal
analysis
question in the last
is
are nec-
out,
effectively earned
examinations
meaning
narrow
tho
one.
is: What
essary.
quota
complied
If the
law is
bo
“entry”
original
? Does it mean
en-
the word
with,
report
registration
all aliens must
give
to the
try? Or do
word a
courts
inspection.
It is to secure the enforce-
limiting adjective?
meaning
by a
unrestricted
immigration
ment
the other sections of
Fortunately,
Supreme Court, in
Claussen act,
are
enacted
the benefit of
which
Day
Frick,
v.
and Lewis
supra,
defined it public
registration
generally, that
and in-
moaning
says—not only
what it
orig-
spection
aliens
are
essential.
inal,
the second or the
last
disposing
question,
of this second
entry.
therefore,
is,
be,
and without further
Question number one should be answered argument or
of authorities,
the citation
as-
affirmative.
may lawfully
no alien
sumed that
enter the
question,
As to the second
except
courts are United States
as he
inspec-
submits to
disagreement
likewise
as to the effect of an tion
meets
the physical, educational, and
falsely stating
in
requirements
wMeh
has seen
spector that he
citizen
United fit to prescribe. Equally
unequiv-
clear and
Herewith are collected
States.
cases which
provides
ocal is the statute wMeh
that aliens
4
uphold an
answer
affirmative
and also those who do not enter
lawfully
tho United States
contrary.5
hold to the
deported.
applicable
The section
the statute
Had the entering
report
alien failed to
“ *
**
question reads
this
as follows:
at
all,
he would not have com-
entry, any
within three
after
plied
required
with the statute which
an in-
*
* *
enters
inspec-
who
spection. Had
reported
tho
point
and at
of a revolver
secured
rec-
(C.
A.)
F.(2d)
Day
Natali
4 U.
ex rel.
C.
S.
(C.
A.)
112;
458;
parte
Ex
Saadi
C.
ord
showed an
Wil
affirmative
en-
(C.
A.)
479;
S.
parte
v. U.
C.
186 F.
Ex
liams
Greaves
hardly
ter the United
he would
con-
(D. C.)
limitation
deportation.
cient
the Sixth Circuit
precise question
before
for.
Zurbrick, 45
Browne v.
Appeals in
Court of
Judge
I am in
Wilkerson’s
accord with
933, 934,
the con
F.(2d)
where
931, pages
weight
conclusion
the manifest
of au-
1-efers
clusion
was reached
thority
appellant,
proposition
on this
with
outside
only to crimes committed
principle
and believe that on
as well as on
by Judge Denison,
opinion,
States.
In the
authority
court should so hold.
subject
were
on
prior
decisions
Judge
discussion of the sec-
Wilkerson’s
thorough
questions so
fully reviewed,
proposition
upon
assump-
ond
proceeds
I
brevity,
ly
the interest
discussed,
Yolpe
tion that on
ly
from Cuba
false-
re-entry
Wong
Yow
set out.
if here
refer to it as
Key
inspector at
immigration
stated to the
F.(2d) 377,
Wilson
Weedin, 33
West that he
citizen
was a
A.
706,
Ninth C. C.
Carr,
F.(2d) 704,
41
judge
and the
concluded and stated
reached
like conclusion
a.
that under
this con-
there stated.
excellent reasons
entry
stituted
inspection,
without
wherefore
previous
on
government relies
eases
.The
Yolpe
deportable
became
applica-
under the
C; where
court held
Ninth -C. A.
ble statute
time after
Tayokichi Yamada,
differently.
Weedin
entry
inspection.
19,
without
supra.
Section
court, in
F.(2d) 455, followed, by the same
.
there,
court,
The reliance
as well as in this
719,
F.(2d)
57 A. L.
Nagle, 17
Bendel v.
Saadi,
(C.
.
clearly su
these are
R. 1129 But I believe
9),
C. A.
ex
United States
rel. Natali v.
perseded by Wong
v. Weedin and Wil
Yow
Day,
2).A.
Carr.
son v.
former the court
hold that the alien’s
did
entry
opinion
the cases of Lewis v.
temporary
represen-
cites
absence
L.
488,
58 Ed.
Frick,
291,
233 U. S.
S. Ct.
tation
of his
constituted
398,
Day, 279 U. S.
967,
subject
Claussen v.
without inspection, and he was
indicating
Ed.
deportation.
73 L.
(cid:127)
regarded in the same
is to
re-entry-
But the Natali
Case involved no
previous
domicile
light as
if-there had
through materially false
mis-
only
to do
here. These eases have
leading
statements to an
in-
influence
of limitations
of the statute
spector. There the domiciled alien went to
ground whereon
In each the
Canada to assist another alien to enter the
sought
sufficient there United
night
At
*7
first,
bringing in a woman for
for—the
the
an Indian rowed them across the St. Law-
other,
the
con
purposes
prostitution,
of
and
York,
rence river
landing
to New
them at an
year
for more than a
for
viction and sentence
evidently
place,
unauthorized
and without
re-entry.
after the
For
committed
murder
any inspection whatever-or opportunity for
yas
that,'counting the
contended
it
each
it. All that the
there
court
held was that on
prior to
domiciled here
time the alien was
inspection,
there
proposi-
must
a
by
.entry,
deportation was barred
last
Surely
tion
is
which
controverted.
that
Supreme
the
The
held
the
statute.
Court
that
helpful
case is not
the
on
here in-
having
statutory period
aliens
the
within
fol volved.
entry committed
which
lowing their last
.acts
Evidently the attention of the district-
deportation,
the
to warrant
were sufficient
judge had not been called to the ease of Ex
for
prior
no
invok
domicile afforded
parte Gouthro,
296 F.
510 (D. C.), the
.
ing the bar
the
limitation
opinion
was,
in
appeal,
approved
appeared
Yolpe,
If here it had
that
within
adopted by
and
Appeals
the
Court
of the
statutory
the
period
re-entry,,
after
Circuit,
Sixth
v. Southro,
committed an
aet
would have -war-
opinion
1023. That
presents cogent discus-
deportation,
ranted his
he could not under
sion
inspection
of what constitutes
under the
say
long pe-
these eases be
to
that his
heard
statutes,
points
any
out that
examina-
prior
depor-
riod of
barred his
domicile here
inspector supplied
the
require-
tion
tation.
regardless
ment of inspection,
the ex-
o.f
inspection or
my
To
is
tent of the
whether or
not,
mind there
not false
the facts or
misleading
in
answers
the alien averted
principle, the remotest 'relation between
inspector
inquiries
other
bar,
only
those eases and that at
where not
made;
long
discretion
and it
original
after
have
concludes
en-
provision
makes
try,
respect
but was
no
for
pen-
not such
to its
since
ment
perhaps
without
alien entered
convenience a
I reach the conclusion
er made false and
spector,
tention here
false
parte
deem
persons who entered
er
spector. While,
he
is included.6
ing,
dence whatever
tioner made
tho
ments
cross-examining
deportation
clusion
country.
ed:
any legal
spection/
tion
ion so
D.
pecially
gration
statements
tion
duced
into her
‘without cross-examination.’
fore she
meaning
hicle
further
which were
tor
ly
any
answers of
refrain
facts were
ation to which
tion’
inspector
have
er.
ute, has
C.), to which
fore
proceedings
authorized
showing
sel,
“No
aliens,
said
made false
“It
inspection
was not
immigrant
C.) is afforded
government
inspection
* * *
of the word
I have been unable
such
railway car,
Act
inspector were false
as would
misleading answers in
been no
in which
upon inspection, are
an
sufficient,
“That
Lalime
legal
oath, but
said
is the contention
from such further
aliens
should
questions
inspectors
fully
legal basis and cannot he
provides
any
has
If a witness
a witness cannot be said to have testified
entered
immigration
even
F.
developed by the
cross-examination,
thus made
to 'board and search for aliens
petitioner
view
alleged,
basis
asked of
definition nor
false and
already mentioned
obliged
884.**
questions would
grounds
brought
as he
because of
(D. C.)
persons
seeking admission
to enter
they
required.
inspectors/
upon that
she was
enable
be,
answers
it
without
though
to the effect
however,
States/
Immigration
in this connection
counsel
such alien has
marginal quotation
alien,
of the discretion
full
‘inspection/
cannot,
who
by her
‘without
misleading
misleading
made
right
made a
as to the nature
has not
Guest, 287 F.
believe aliens
could
to
general
her. Nor
entered without
opinion
by petitioner
misleading
that,
him to
in court makes
subjected
officials
arriving
accept
who
to find
to
*
contention
omit
as
* * *
other
or should have
answers
the exclusion
explanation
fair
her
F.
later
and such
questions
ground
country,
false and
forego
*
whether or not
proposition that
yet
making
searching cross-examin-
inspection,’
petitioner
*8
completo
terms
my opinion,
contention
attention
Act.
279;
might
given misinforma-
statements
*
have not
statements
government’s con
to be
reach
further
opportunity
them as
government
exclusion.
misleading,
refers,
seen fit to so enact.
any.
entered
does
no
and there
conveyance,
develops
shall
aliens
If such
statements
used in this
are
petitioner
Even if the
real
for the
There
vested in
is that
thereby
Ex
inspection,
event affords
of tho
884, 890
have
sustained.
a proper
it
inspectors
House this
and extent of classified
elicited
be ‘conducted
or
of this
inspection
to enter
complaint
investigation
misleading hardly
‘without
appear
therefrom
‘the
it
hearing
such
falso
true,
that
within
bo
the mean
is no
successful
investiga
that
been,
made,
made
Immigra
immigra-
exclusion
question
questions
No
is stat-
petition
petition
petition-
that
ho
seem to
govern
brought
avoided
induces
proper
the in
to
inspec
inspec
or ve
opin
immi
there-
false
court,
Guest
state
or to
make
facts
peti
stat
such
him,
con
ves
said
(D.
for
evi-
are
be-
in
es
in
in-
Ex
is effect in
law a
to leave
ing
the majority of the federal courts which had
try.
great weight
er
never
have been aware
tion
statute can
sustaining
stitute
federal courts
not have been unmindful of
withstanding subsequent frequent amendment
suasively
deeision’has been
spector,
cluded
expressed
fact.”
false or
examination or
concealment of
was stricken from
ence of the
fieials, or
ing
Gouthro,
tion
ed States at
designated by immigration officials,
“(5) An alien who hereafter enters the Unit-
cided
trict
fining deportable aliens
vision
troduced
tion or the
(D. C.),
most
In Ex
It
misleading representation
The attitude
that misstatement
as whole.”
asked make
laws,
(cid:127)wilfully
proposition
There is
thereafter
Court
before 1929. In 1929'there was
alien has been
thus seems
passing,
classes, ground
confer sueh
a
decidedly
This would for
made
a
claim
such canse.
also
misleading
noteworthy
obtains
into the
Guest, and Lalime Cases were de-
indicate that
parte
satisfactory interpretation of tbe
themselves to the effect that sueh
the conclusion
in which there was a section de-
properly
wilful
classification
any
statute,
committees
statute
“without
was then
on his
false
by person
or
a material fact.
inspection
it
Lalime et
been
a bill to amend
time
called to
a
proof
may
concealment
express
apparent
cited,
interpreted
or misleading representa-
oath to
the second
extremely
the contrary.
statements did not con-
thereon as most of tho
admitted
be extended
quite
included in the
and I do not think the
that,
laws.
This action would
or place
proposed
authorities,
inspection,”
the first
into the United States
to an
be said
against
for willfully
that
the court said:
for
very
reached
of
al.,
by immigration of-'
my
(above
provision
unless
significant.
any
deportation
immigration in-
Congress
244 F.
Volpe
be,
attention bold-
decided
into this coun-
wide
or the willful
it.
within the ex-
other than as
Upon
that there is
statutes
deportability
statement
me
bill, and
proposition,
Senate and
holdings
inter alia:
be
it a material
italicized)
respect
far
or
powers.”
law,
made
that
2791,282
implica-
have in-
the Dis-
to that
confer-
willing
eludes
pend-
could
must
false
per-
pro-
con-
“No
not-
aft-
has
or
inspector’s
judg-
eluded
on the counterfeit within the
discretion and
charge
re-entry,
physically
his
a bar to
ment.
If the alien
submits him-
constituted
alleged
citizenship
inspection
proper port
false statement of
the self’for
at a
inspector
nothing
would
inspector
concealed
have and the
admits him even
without
’
Yolpe’s right
being uttered,
barred
word
I am of the belief that
rep-
upon
acts,
depended
sufficient,
no extent
and he
could
anything
merely
utation,
character,
deported
or
else which
thereafter be
for the want
“guns”
for his ex-
course,
the statute is not made
of it. Of
if the alien
himself
may
in,
have
clusion
re-enter. He
supposititiously
opinion,
or his
stated
in the United
presented
been
times
situation
be
so
different
arrested
hundred
may
require
have
States, and his associations
that here
as to
consideration.
yet
of this could
disreputable,
of most
all
If
under certain circumstances
any basis
re-entry,
might
nor
pursued
inquiry further,
not have barred his
be
thereby have
might
He
for his
does not militate
conclusion
from,
Yolpe
Indeed,
citizenships
inspected.
Inspec-
unfitness
been barred
in fact
be lawful
Phillips
would not
tor
testified that at that
deportation or denial of
were
papers required
either for
for re-entry of a
temporarily de-
to a
who-had
domiciled
domiciled alien
temporary
after his
absence
parted.
did not directly
His
to re-enter
months,
Cuba of less than six
if
and that
he
depend
or
he
indirectly
(Phillips)
whether
were satisfied that such an alien
might
of the United
a citizen
seeking re-entry
become
person
was the
claimed
shows, pro-
States; and,
far
be,
so
as this record
ordinarily
he would
(See
be admitted.
investiga^
microscopic
tracted, repeated,
marginal
above.)
note 6
evident to
life,
purpose,
tion into his
Upon this proposition, not less than the
wholly
hazard,
at all
has
me,
deporting him
other, grievous injustice and extremes of
ground for
legal
bring
light
failed to
inhumanity
easily
harshness and
could
fol-
in the above
deportation,
not found
if
low in
wake
of such
construction as
conviction.
stated
government
contends—not the
was said:
parte Guest, supra, it
liability
least of
be the
anything was con-
appear that
“It does not
deportation upon
the fallible recollection
immigration in-
which, if known to the
cealed
immigration inspector
of an
as to conversa-
exclu-
spectors,
a cause
would have been
occurring perhaps
tions
decades before the
sion.”
begun.
proceedings were
(C. C.)
146, 150,
In Lewis Frick
F.
I well realize that
the admission or de-
discussing
the effect of
false statements
Congress may
in its dis-
portation
aliens
immigration, it was
said:
impose
cretion
on aliens discriminations
“ * * *
falsity
if their
had been discov
hardships
reason, and
and inhuman-
without
made, would, nevertheless,
ered when
limit;
clearly
and if
ities
perfect right
had a
return to
his domicile prescribed, this
last word.
is the
But as was
in Detroit.”
said in Lau Ow Bew v. United
144 U.
47, 59,
517, 520, 36 L.
12 S. Ct.
Ed. 340:
Gegiow Uhl,
And
U. S.
36 S.
“Nothing
than that
2, 3,
is better settled
60 L. Ed.
it was said:
statutes
“The
by enumerating
construction,
the conditions
receive
sensible
legislative. intention,
as will
which the
effectuate the
allowance to
denied,
land
and,
possible,
unjust
if
prohibits
so as
denial in
to avoid an
other cases.”
Holy
an absurd conclusion. Church of the
logically
follows
be he saint or
Trinity
457],
U. S.
[143
devil, Yolpe’s
citizenship,
statement of
if
*9
226];
S. Ct.
L. Ed.
Henderson v.
[36
made to the
claimed,
did not mis-
Mayor
York,
Ed.
New
L.
[23
lead-the
to his detriment, and cov-
543];
Kirby,
United States v.