This is 5 out of the 10. and 4 of them for Wigginton. The next is a foreigner who came to the United States in 1868. and had remained ever since. A stalwart republican by the name of Hanna insisted that he should be naturalized and vote the republican ticket. went with him to court and proved his residence. and aided him in getting his naturalization papers. He then voted the democratic ticket. and now it is charged that the witness swore he come here in 1858. which was false. and it is said that that vitiates the judgment of the court and renders his naturalization papers void. It is enough to say in reply that the fact testified was not material at all. He had been in the country eight years. and that was more than the law required. and entitled the court to grant the naturalization papers. which it did. And the other fact. whether true or false. could not change his right or affect the determination of the court. But if he had been in the United States only one year and had proemued naturalization papers by false testimony before they could be annulled. there would have to be more testimony and stronger than any in this case. The judgment of the courtimports verity. and when that judgment is invoked in support of a right claimed. it requires something more than loose declarations of false testimony to set it aside. Every presumption is in favor of its truth.
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization