In Re Chin Mee Ho
Before: Beatty
Synopsis
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus to test the validity ■of letters of guardianship issued by the Superior Court of the ■City and County of San Francisco. T. F. Graham, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the chief justice.
BEATTY, C. J.
This is a proceeding in
habeas corpus-
prosecuted by the superintendent of the Presbyterian Mission Home in behalf of a Chinese girl, who, it is claimed, is. held in bondage by Louie Ying and Louie Young.
It is alleged, in substance, by the petitioner that Louie Young, falsely pretending to be the father of the girl, placed her in the family of Louie Ying, where she was compelled to perform the duties of a domestic servant; that she voluntarily left Louie Ying’s house and sought the protection of the ladies, conducting the Presbyterian Mission Home for Chinese girls, where she was allowed to remain until she was forcibly removed by Louie Young and Louie Ying, in pursuance of an order of the superior court awarding the custody to them after a hearing upon
habeas corpus.
Immediately after regaining the custody of the girl Louie Ying petitioned the superior-court to appoint him her guardian, and the court made an order to that effect, upon which letters of guardianship were-issued. It is claimed by petitioner that these proceedings are-void for two reasons:—1. Because no sufficient notice of the hearing was given; and 2. Because the order appointing the guardian requires no bond.
The issues made by the petition, return, and answer thereto are,—1. As to the parentage of the girl; and 2. As to the validity of the guardianship proceedings.
As to the first there is a serious conflict in the testimony introduced at the hearing; as to the second the evidence is without conflict, and only a question of law is presented.
Regarding the claim of Louie Young to be the father of the girl, he showed that he paid her passage from Hong Kong to San Francisco, where she arrived in August, 1900. Upon her-arrival he asked her admission to the country on the ground that he was a resident Chinese merchant and that she was his minor child. Her right to land was duly investigated by the customs officials, and she was admitted upon the testi
[265]
mony of Louie Young,—fully corroborated by her in all essential particulars,—to the effect that she was the child of his first wife, born at Hong Kong a few days before the death of her mother, and left by him in the care of his family when he returned to the United States. After a number of years he returned to China and was married to a second wife, but this child remained with his brother’s family. After a year or two he returned to San Francisco, and, learning shortly after his arrival that the law permitted his minor child to be brought in, he sent for her in order to have her near him. This testimony, given before the customs officials on his application for a permit to land, was, as I have said, fully corroborated in all essentials by the girl, but upon some minor points called out in the examination there were discrepancies which evidently excited the suspicions of one of the officers conducting the examination, but in the end, and upon proof that Louie Young was a merchant of good repute among his own countrymen, the order for admission was granted. Directly upon her landing Mee Ho was placed by Louie Young in the family of Louie Ying, where, as they claim, she is regarded as a member of the family and treated in every respect as a child of the house. Louie Ying is a Chinese, but a native of the United States. He is a merchant of good repute, and lives with his family, consisting of a wife and four children, in a respectable quarter of Chinatown. He is, as they both claim, an uncle of Louie Young. Against this testimony there is very positive and direct evidence, coming from some of the ladies connected with the mission, that when the girl first came to them for protection she was clad in a coarse and scanty garb, very inferior to the dress of the daughters of well-to-do Chinese; that when Louie Ying came to take her back he said she was his servant; and that after her return she was found nursing a young child of Louie Ying, and in the apparent position of a servant. In addition to this evidence, she herself testified on the hearing that her evidence before the customs officials at the time of her landing was false, and was given under instructions from Louie Yeung. The truth is, she now testifies, that she is the child of a peasant family living in a village in the neighborhood of Hong Kong, by whom she was sold to the family of Louie Young, who
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)