Case ID: f_176/html/0735-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STRETTON et al. v. SHAHEEN. SAME v. SHADDY.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 1, 1910.)
    Nos. 1,915, 1,916.
    Habeas Cowes (§ 75) — Rbtubn—Requisites and Sufficiency.
    Returns 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.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Dec. Dig. § 75.]
    Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
    Proceedings 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.
    Affirmed.
    Charlton R. Beattie and W. J. Waguespack, for appellant.
    Chas. I. Denechaud, for appellees.
    Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § numbbh in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, ft Iiep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

In 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.

The 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).

The 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.

As we agree with the Circxiit Court in its findings, the judgment of the Circuit Court in each of the above-entitled cases is affirmed.