Case ID: f2d_3/html/0145-01.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

GEBARTUS v. PAUL.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    November 20, 1924.)
    No. 3416.
    Aliens <@=354 — Evidence held sufficient to show accused knowingly distributed literature opposing organized government.
    Evidence of previous arrest of alien sought to be deported for distributing literature opposing all organized government, and his statement that he believed in its teachings, held sufficient to show that he knew nature of literature distributed by him in violation of Act Cong. Oct. 16, 1918, as amended by Act Cong. Juno 5, 1920 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 4289%b[ll).
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
    Habeas corpus by Joe Gebartus against Chas. H. Paul. From a judgment quashing the writ, relator appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. W. Richter, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.
    Roy L. Morse, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.
    Before ALSCHULEE, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from judgment quashing writ of habeas corpus challenging sufficiency of deportation proceedings brought against appellant, an alien. The warrant of deportation recites that it is predicated upon the finding that appellant had in his possession for purposes of circulation and distribution -written and printed matter advising, advocating, and teaching opposition to all organized government. It is conceded that he was in fact distributing such matter, and the only contention is that the evidence wholly fails to show that he knew the matter was of that nature.

The conclusion seems inescapable that there was ample evidence of this fact. It appears that a year or so before, while distributing similar literature, he was arrested, and then stated as his reason for such distribution that he believed in the matters and things set forth in the literature. He was then permitted to go unproseeuted, but was again taken while distributing the same sort of matter. The inference is quite irresistible that he understood the nature of it, and deliberately persisted in doing what the law of the land forbade. Act of Congress Oct. 16, 1918, as amended by Act June 5, 1920 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 4289i/4b[l]).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.