The Maui news. [volume] (Wailuku, Maui, H.I.) 1900-current, 1920-12-24
DECISION OF COURT IN MCKAY CITIZENSHIP CASE

Wherein, Proceedings of the kind
(referring to Naturalization are re-
quired to be recorded; but it was prov
ed or conceded that the records of
such proceedings in this district were
destroyed many years ago; n in
view of hat fact, and of the long
PERIOD between the purchase of the
properly and the other evidence ex-
hibite4 n the record, the court left
the q1i stion whether the party was
or was not n~aturalized to the jury"
In that case it was conceded the re-
cords had been destroyed.
Another leading case bearing on the
point is that of .Kreitz VS.. Behrens-
meyer, 8 American State Reports, read
ing on page 377 wherein it states,
Records of naturalization are nowise
different from other records. When
destroyed, secondary evidence of their
contents may be given, just as may
secondary evidence of the contents of
any other record be given"
Another authority bearing on the
point is that of Conover VS.. Old; n
Atlantic Reporter; page 1911:
The proof of naturalization I'M
d%oubtedly ought generally to be made
by documentary evidence, but that is
not always possible; and the Supreme
Court of the United States, whose de-
cisions ought to be our guide in a
matter of this kind, has held that,
where no record of naturalization can
be produced, evidence that a person,
having the requisite qualifications TO
become a citizen, did in fact and for
a long time vote and hold office and
exercise rights belonging to citizens,
is sufficient to warrant a jury in in
ferring that he had been duly natural
lied as a citizen" Boyd VS.. Nebraska,
143 U. S. 1876, at page $50, II Sup. CT.
375, at page 3S9, SO L.. Ed. 103. The
same view was subsequently express
ed in Contzen VS.. United States, 179
u. S. 191, at page 1876, 81 Sup. ct. SO,
As L. Ed. 14S. 1t had previously been
held in Hogan VS.. Kurtz, "a U. S. 773,
"a l.. Ed. 317, in a case where the re-
cords had been destroyed. We do not
question that, before such proof out
side of the record can be resorted TO,
some excuse must appear for the sub
~stitution of the secondary evidence for
the documentary proof, as was held by
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts
in Dennis VS.. Brewster, Z Gray, 351.
In this case such an excuse appears.
The extreme youth of the respondent
during the years when his father lived
in the West, the fact that they lived
together but little, and at n time
were alienated from each other, that
the respondent would hardly have
been likely to inquire, and his father
would hardly have been likely to state
the exact place in the West where
he had been n~aturalized, and the
practical impossibility, in the absence
of such information, of having an ex-
animation of the records made, to-
gether with the fact hat there were
other children who might very well
have had the custody of the fathers
certificate of naturalization, are sufi-
cient to warrant the resort to parol
evidence. This evidence suficies to
make a prima facie case for the res
pendent"
In other words, proof of naturaliZa-
ton can only be made by the records
in the case. Where parol evidence is
admissible is where the records are
lost or destroyed; or where there has
been naturalization of the parent and
the court and place where such ma
turalization took place is unknown.
Then, in such cases, parol evidence is
admissible to prove the essential facts
AS l stated, in this case we have the
court minutes and we also have the
calendar, in which nothing appears.
There is one more volume of court
records introduced in evidence cover
ing the year 1900, in which an entry
was made, from which it might be
presumed that some naturalization
proceedings might have been had;
that is the costs docket referred to,
and it is the only entry in the court
record.
AS previously stated, it doesn't show
that anything was filed. 1t merely
shows that the sum of presumably
seven dollars was deposited by
or on behalf of w. A. Mckay. On this
point it might be said there being this
entry, that parol evidence should be
introduced to go to supply the alleged
deficiency. AS to that the law is laid
down in the American and English
Encyclopedia of Law, Vol. 6, reading
from page %:
insufficient Records not helped by
parol. Where the records which should
show naturalization proceedings on
tain no record of the naturalization, or
are insufficient to prove naturalization
Gust what we have in this case) parol
evidence is inadmissible 10 supply al
legged deficiencies therein"
OF the cases cited under that head
ing l will read two which are appli-
cable:
(Note) S. Record cannot be con-
tradicted by parol. A court has no
power to enter an order admitting an
alien to citizenship nunc pro tune
where the records of the court for
the period which should show the
naturalization contain no record there
of, or of the antecedent steps requisite
under the statute, and only show that
the petitioner declared his intention
to become a citizen. The court will
not admit the supposition that things
may hae been done in respect to the
naturalization of persons which do not
appear of record. Matter of Desty, 8
Abb. N. Cas-. IN. Y. Super. Ct.) $50.
See also Slade VS.. Minor, 2 Cranch
&c. c. 139."