QUESTION: OF NATIONALITY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12404, 23 August 1918, Page 6

QUESTION: OF NATIONALITY.

INTERESTING AILEN CASE. BRITISH OR AMERICAN? An interesting case concerning the employment ou a ship of a man ..alleged to be an unlicensed alien was heard before Air S. E. M’Corthv at the -Magistrate’s Court this morning, when Robert, Weir Richards (Mr Booker) was charged that, being an. unlicensed alien, ho was employed in work on a ship. The police contended that defendant was an American and that the onus was un defendant to prove that ho was not. Air Booker said that ’ defendant’s father had been born in Wales and his mother in Scotland. Defendant w;ii horn in’ Brooklyn. United States, m September, 1884. All his older brothers and sisters had been born in the United Kingdom, and a brother, just older than defendant, was thirty-nine years of age, or not more than five years older than defendant. Air Booker said that by American' law a man could not .become an American citizen unless ho lived for five years in America. In was clear, therefore, that as (he brother just older than defendant. had been born in Britain, defendant’s father could not have been an American citizen when d&fendaut was born, because he could not have been in the country long enough to give him the right to apply for naturalisation as an American subject Air Booker also quoted a case which had been heard in England, in which it was held that a mail who left America at the ago of seven had' resided in England and had not returned to America since, wan held. u. be a British subject. ■ The-ground ; of this decision was that the man had never permanently resided in America. Air Booker said that defendant, lint! left America when he was twelve I 'years of age, and had not returned since, except, once, when he went back on a ■boat.

The defendant gave evidence on lint** similar to Mr Booker’s opening. He said that he ran away from home when twelve years of age. going to London ns t a cabin boy. Ho had resided in British territory ever since and had only boon in America once, that being when the heat ho was on called at an American port. He had always regarded himself as a British subject, because his father and mother were both British by birth. He had-regis-tered in the National Register borons a-; British subject, and he had never before been questioned as to his nationality.

The Magistrate held that the defendant’s father could not have been naturalised when the defendant was horn, ns ho had not resided in tho United (States for the required five years. Further, there was no proof that the father had ever been naturalised. Also, whilst still a minor, the defendant had gone to reside in and had ever since been domiciled in British lerritorv. The Information would therefore bo dismissed.

On account of this decision a case against Matthew Sillars of having permitted an unlicensed alien to he employed was withdrawn.