Case ID: f_210/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DODGE, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. DWIGHT MFG. CO.
    (District Court, D. Massachusetts.
    November 19, 1913.)
    No. 254.
    Aliens (§ 58) — Contract Laborers — Penalty—Declaration.
    A declaration by the United States to recover a penalty for the importation of contract laborers in violation of Immigration Act Peb. 20, 1907, e. 1134, §§ 4, 5, 34 Stat. 900 (U. S. Comp. St. 'Supp. 1911, p. 503) which merely alleged the alien to have been “a certain alien contract laborer” without setting out facts which showed him to have been within such definition, was demurrable.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Aliens, Cent. Dig. §§ 113, 114; Dee. Dig. § 58.]
    Action by the United States against the1 Dwight Manufacturing Company. On demurrer to amended declaration.
    Sustained in part.
    See, also, 210 Fed. 74, 79.
    Asa P. French, U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. •
    Charles F. Choate, Jr., of Boston, Mass., for defendant.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DODGE, Circuit Judge.

The second amendment of the declaration, filed February 14, 1913, and allowed as a whole March 31, 1913, has, by a modifying order this day entered, been disallowed, to the extent that it seeks to amend the last 25 counts of the preceding amended declaration. 210 Fed. 79. The sufficiency of a pending demurrer to the counts of said preceding declaration, filed April 15, 1912, is thus left to be determined so far as it applies to said last 25 counts thereof.

These counts being alike, except as to names, places, and dates, what is below said applies to all.

No violation of section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1907 seems to me sufficiently alleged.

The facts alleged do not make it appear with sufficient distinctness that the alien, whose migration the defendant is charged with assisting by prepaying his passage, was a “contract laborer” within the definition of the statute at the time of the alleged prepayment. It is not enough to allege him to have been “a certain alien, contract laborer,” without setting forth facts which clearly bring him within said definition.

There are no allegations negativing the application to the alien named of the last two provisos of section 2 of the act.

The demurrer is therefore sustained as to all the 25 counts referred to.