Tuesday, May 6, 2014
STRATFORD.
Wong Loon Young was fined £1 and costs 7s, for selling cigarettes to a small boy.
Taranaki Daily News , 31 March 1917, Page 3
Poor old Chinaman! A market gardener named Wong
was before the Court yesterday on a charge of necessarily wasting
water from the municipal supply. Mr. A. H. Johns!one. who appear",l for
the defendant, undertook that no further waste would be allowed. and a necessary connection with a stopcock would be made. The Chinaman
was fined 2s id and ordered to pay 7s costs. If the borough
inspector looking for gardeners who waste the municipal water supply he
needn't confine his attention to the ahnond-eyed gentlemen who "glow
eabbagee
Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 312, 11 February 1910, Page 4
Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 312, 11 February 1910, Page 4
THEFT OF VEGETABLES
THEFT OF VEGETABLES. George Hunt was charged with stealing 3'd cauliflowers, valued at' XI 13s, the property of Wong
Yem, market gardener. Accused was not present when the case was called,
and the Magistrate gave instructions for the issue oi a warrant for his
arrest. A little later accused appeared and the vase proceeded. He
pleaded not guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. Complainant
said he was a gardener at Belt Road, and on Friday morning he missed 3a
cauliflowers, which he valued at Is each. He identified the cauliflowers
produced as his property. He had missed caulflowers on previous
occasions. Two of the stalks produced were broccoli, and not cauliflower
stalks.
C. W- Waldock said he liad visited accused's place on, September 29, and there were no cauliflowers on the property. Last Saturday accused saw witness at his private house, and complained about the police searching his' cart. He said he took the police to his garden and showed them where he had got the cauliflowers from, an suggested, witness should give him a receipt for the caulflowers,. This witness declined to do, and told Hunt he had purchased no cauliflowers from him.
Albert Bayly and J. G. James also gave evidence.
Constable Blaikie, in hi-s evidence, said in consequence of complaints, he visited complainant's garden and saw where the. cauliflowers had been cut. He tracked footprints to the rosW. and also from there tracked new wheel-marks in the direction of Spotswood. His suspicions were aroused, and the next day lie met accused in his cart with his wife in Pioneer Road. Hunt endeavored to trot past witness, but he stopped him ana found 41 cauliflowers in 'his cart- He said he had bought two dozen from a Chinaman the week before, and the rest wore his own growing. Witness went to accused's place at Spotswood, and the place where he said he had cut the cauliflowers had, in witness' opinion, been ploughed a week or so previously. He showed witness some stalks on the ground, which he said were cauliflower stalks, but witness thought them broccoli Accused refused to sell witness any of the cauliflower-! in his cart, so he took possession of those produced, as well as the stalks of broccoli.
After re-hearing some of the witnesses at acciised'-s request, the Magistrate said the case was a clear one. Hunt had previously been convicted of theft, but fines appeared to do no good. He was, therefore, sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labor. Taranaki Daily News , 18 October 1918, Page 8
C. W- Waldock said he liad visited accused's place on, September 29, and there were no cauliflowers on the property. Last Saturday accused saw witness at his private house, and complained about the police searching his' cart. He said he took the police to his garden and showed them where he had got the cauliflowers from, an suggested, witness should give him a receipt for the caulflowers,. This witness declined to do, and told Hunt he had purchased no cauliflowers from him.
Albert Bayly and J. G. James also gave evidence.
Constable Blaikie, in hi-s evidence, said in consequence of complaints, he visited complainant's garden and saw where the. cauliflowers had been cut. He tracked footprints to the rosW. and also from there tracked new wheel-marks in the direction of Spotswood. His suspicions were aroused, and the next day lie met accused in his cart with his wife in Pioneer Road. Hunt endeavored to trot past witness, but he stopped him ana found 41 cauliflowers in 'his cart- He said he had bought two dozen from a Chinaman the week before, and the rest wore his own growing. Witness went to accused's place at Spotswood, and the place where he said he had cut the cauliflowers had, in witness' opinion, been ploughed a week or so previously. He showed witness some stalks on the ground, which he said were cauliflower stalks, but witness thought them broccoli Accused refused to sell witness any of the cauliflower-! in his cart, so he took possession of those produced, as well as the stalks of broccoli.
After re-hearing some of the witnesses at acciised'-s request, the Magistrate said the case was a clear one. Hunt had previously been convicted of theft, but fines appeared to do no good. He was, therefore, sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labor. Taranaki Daily News , 18 October 1918, Page 8
CHINESE AND OPIUM.
CHINESE AND OPIUM.
RECENT NEW PLYMOUTH PRO SECUTIONS.
THE CONVICTIONS QUASHED.
His Honor jir. Justice Edwards has decided in favor of the appellants in the appeals of Charles Wong See and Joe Wall against John Hamilton llempton, Collector of Customs at New Plymouth, who recently successfully prosecuted the two Chinese mentioned for bronchus of the law relating to the importation of opium. The decision was read by the deputy-registrar of the Supreme Court yesterday morning. (living judgment, his Honor said:— "The offence charged by each informn| tion was that the appellant against whom it was laid had on August 3tu, 190!), in certain premises occupied by Chinese, situated in Devon street. Xew Plymouth, knowingly acquired possession of certain prohibited goods, to wit, opium, in a form suitable for smoking, contrary to the provisions of sub-section (g) of section 23G of the Customs Law Act, PJOS, whereby the appellant had forfeited the penalty of £11)0 for ■which the Minister of Customs hud elected to sue. The facts found by the Magistrate are that on August ol.li. 190!). the appellant, Wong See, a Chinese laundry-man, resided in certain premises in Devon street, Xew Plymouth. On that day two constables visited the premises. When they entered the house a third Chinaman, not charged, calh 1 out some words in Chinese to the men upstairs. On arriving at the top of the .stairs, leading to a room in which they subsequently found the appellant, Wong See, the constables found tile appellant, Joe Wall, coining from that direction. The appellant, Joe Wall, then threw away a jar, which was picked up by one of the constables and was found to contain extract of opium suitable for smoking. On entering the room, the constables found the appellant, Wong See, smoking, or iiaving just ceased smoking opium from a pipe, which Wis then in his hands and was hot. The constables found in this appellant's possession a quantity of opium in a form suitable for smoking. Counsel for the appellant in each case contended before the Magistrate that it was incumbeut upon the prosecution to prove (1) that the opium found in the possession of the appellants was suitable for smoking ■when it was imported; (2) that ths appellant charged acquired it in that form; (3) that when he acquired it he knew that it was prohibited; and (4) that it was acquired by the appellant, charged 'within three years from August 5. The Magistrate held that these were matters which lay peculiarly within the knowledge of tne appellants, and Wat consequently the burden of proof as to these lay upon the appellants. His Honor stated that under the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1882, sectiJii 66, the importation ot opium was restricted, but was not, whatever its form, prohibited. By the Opium Prohibitio.i Act, 1901, No. 26 (section 2), the importation of opium in any form lor smoking was absolutely prohibited; and (section 3) the importation of opium ;n any other form wnich, though not suitable lor smoking, .might be made suitable, was restricted. By the Opium Prohibition Act Amendment Act, 1902, No. 15 (section. 2), it was enacted that after December 30 in that year any opium or preparation of opium prohibited by the Act of 1901 to be importej, and found in the possession of any one person, should be forfeited, and tint every person in whose possession any such opium or preparation was found should bo liable to a penalty not exceeding £SO. This enactment was the subject of interpretation by this Court in Johnston v. Fan Tu, "6 Gazette L.K., 107. In that case I held—and the decision has never been questioned—that the effect of the second section of the Amendment Act of 1902, No. 15, was t.-i render it unlawful for any person to ,have in his possession after December 31, 1902, opium in any form suitable for smoking, whether imported before the Act of 1901 or not. It was, in fact, held that there was an absolute prohibition against the possession or opium in any form suitable for smoking; ]f, therefore, the proceedings against Hi-; present appellants had been prior to the legislation of 190S, there could hav* been absolutely no answer to them/'
His Honor then went on to review the legislation of 11)08, which repealed all previous enactments upon the subject. The proceedings in the cases under appeal were taken under ''The Customs Act, 1008," but it was necessary to consider first the provisions of The Opium Act, 1008." The fifth section of this Act took the place of Ihe second section of the Act of 1002, but did not replace it in the sense of reproducing either its language or its effect. To establish an offence under the second subsection of this section, his Honor held, it was clearly necessary to show that the opium found in the possession of the person ■charged had been importel or purchased in breach of the previous provision of the Act. The person charged could also establish, as a good affirmative defence, that he had not a guilty mind. It would be a good defence 10 an information under sub-section 2 of section o of "The Opium Act, 1008," to show that the opium found in the possession of the person charged had been imported o r purchased by him prior to August 4, 1008, on which date the Consolidated Legislation of 1008 came into operation, since in that case it could not have been imported or purchased in contravention of the provisions of that Act. "Probably the person charged might by virtue of section 20 of "f h-> Acts Interpretation Act, 1008." still fall within the meshes of the law, hut it must he unfler the repealed Acts, and not under the Act of 1008. It is therefore, 1 think, clear that the facts found by the Magistrate in the present ■would not support convictions under sub-section 2 of section 5 of 'The Opium Act, 1008.'"
But these proceedings were under s J lion 230 of "The Customs Law Act, MOS," and it was necessary to examine the provision of that enactment, which his Honor did at length, concluding by holding that the offence in the section of the Act under which the information wn« laid could only be established by proof that the person charged had "knowingly" acquired possession of goods prohibited or restricted by or uncustomed, under "The Custom's Law l!HI8." There was no pretence (hat in J the present proceedings there was any j evidence of guilty knoT»'sdge on the part of cither of the appellants other than such inference as might be drawn from the possession by each of them of opium in a prohibited form. Counsel for the respondent contended, however, that the burden of proof that the ip' pellants had not guilty knowledge lav upon them, and that. a 6 thev failed to discharge this burden, they'were properly convicted. In support of this contention counsel relied upon the principle stated by the Magistrate to be the ground of his adjudication, and noon the 2!Mth section of "The Customs Law Act, inns." TTis Honor, howevc considered that (his section could not apply in any case where the Statute made guiltv knowledge an essential clement of (he offence. To apply the provision of (his section in such a cara would be to wipe out from the Statute the .word "knowingly," which always throws the burden of proof upon the Crown. T„ hold (hat. where the offence enacted by the Statute is "knowingly" doing a certain act. the burden of proof was bv section 2114 (brown upon the person charged would therefore be to give no effect whatever lo lhat word 'To h'ol,l thar where (he burden of proof of guilty knowledge lies upon tin prosecution, that burden transferred from the prosecution to the person charged, because whether or not the person charged has guilty knowledge is a fact peculiarly within 'its own know- ledge, is not merely a contradiction in term, but is a direct negation of (he principles laid down bv (he hbdicn authority. No doubt, whether o r not guilty knowledge has been proved ,is generally a matter of inference for established facts. But here there were no facts proved from which the Magistrate could properly have inferred" guilty Knowledge, nor dfSdie Tiase his adjudication upon that ground. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, and the conviction must be quashed in each case. I donot think that those niv cases in which costs should be allowed i against respondent, who is a public offi- 1 cer. ft was hie duty to know, and
he may be assumed to have known the construction put by the Court upon ■tin- Statutes which were repealed oy the
legislation of 1908. It was perhaps his duty to ascertain from the report of the Commissioners what alterations in the Customs laws were made by the .Consolidated Statutes. If lie read" that report, he found nothing in it to indicate that the law had been altered in this respect. It may be safely inferred that the Commissioners were not tlk-mi selves aware that they had altered the law. The respondent was therefore justified in assuming that he had a dear case against the appellants, which i: was his duty to bring. The ap.K'llanU-, on the other hand, bv their own con duct, slewed that I hey inleude-l to break the law and that they thought they, were doing so. They may hiiiv done so, but it has not been proved. They have escaped by reason of an accidental alteration in the law which they cannot have known, and which wis ertainu not i.itended by the l/'irislatun-."
Mr. Ilutclien appeared for Won. Nee, Mr. A. II hnstone (Malonc. Anderson and Johnstone) for Joe Yah.' tad Air. T. S. Weston. Crown Prns-.-eutor, for iho respondent. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 271, 22 December 1909, Page 4
RECENT NEW PLYMOUTH PRO SECUTIONS.
THE CONVICTIONS QUASHED.
His Honor jir. Justice Edwards has decided in favor of the appellants in the appeals of Charles Wong See and Joe Wall against John Hamilton llempton, Collector of Customs at New Plymouth, who recently successfully prosecuted the two Chinese mentioned for bronchus of the law relating to the importation of opium. The decision was read by the deputy-registrar of the Supreme Court yesterday morning. (living judgment, his Honor said:— "The offence charged by each informn| tion was that the appellant against whom it was laid had on August 3tu, 190!), in certain premises occupied by Chinese, situated in Devon street. Xew Plymouth, knowingly acquired possession of certain prohibited goods, to wit, opium, in a form suitable for smoking, contrary to the provisions of sub-section (g) of section 23G of the Customs Law Act, PJOS, whereby the appellant had forfeited the penalty of £11)0 for ■which the Minister of Customs hud elected to sue. The facts found by the Magistrate are that on August ol.li. 190!). the appellant, Wong See, a Chinese laundry-man, resided in certain premises in Devon street, Xew Plymouth. On that day two constables visited the premises. When they entered the house a third Chinaman, not charged, calh 1 out some words in Chinese to the men upstairs. On arriving at the top of the .stairs, leading to a room in which they subsequently found the appellant, Wong See, the constables found tile appellant, Joe Wall, coining from that direction. The appellant, Joe Wall, then threw away a jar, which was picked up by one of the constables and was found to contain extract of opium suitable for smoking. On entering the room, the constables found the appellant, Wong See, smoking, or iiaving just ceased smoking opium from a pipe, which Wis then in his hands and was hot. The constables found in this appellant's possession a quantity of opium in a form suitable for smoking. Counsel for the appellant in each case contended before the Magistrate that it was incumbeut upon the prosecution to prove (1) that the opium found in the possession of the appellants was suitable for smoking ■when it was imported; (2) that ths appellant charged acquired it in that form; (3) that when he acquired it he knew that it was prohibited; and (4) that it was acquired by the appellant, charged 'within three years from August 5. The Magistrate held that these were matters which lay peculiarly within the knowledge of tne appellants, and Wat consequently the burden of proof as to these lay upon the appellants. His Honor stated that under the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1882, sectiJii 66, the importation ot opium was restricted, but was not, whatever its form, prohibited. By the Opium Prohibitio.i Act, 1901, No. 26 (section 2), the importation of opium in any form lor smoking was absolutely prohibited; and (section 3) the importation of opium ;n any other form wnich, though not suitable lor smoking, .might be made suitable, was restricted. By the Opium Prohibition Act Amendment Act, 1902, No. 15 (section. 2), it was enacted that after December 30 in that year any opium or preparation of opium prohibited by the Act of 1901 to be importej, and found in the possession of any one person, should be forfeited, and tint every person in whose possession any such opium or preparation was found should bo liable to a penalty not exceeding £SO. This enactment was the subject of interpretation by this Court in Johnston v. Fan Tu, "6 Gazette L.K., 107. In that case I held—and the decision has never been questioned—that the effect of the second section of the Amendment Act of 1902, No. 15, was t.-i render it unlawful for any person to ,have in his possession after December 31, 1902, opium in any form suitable for smoking, whether imported before the Act of 1901 or not. It was, in fact, held that there was an absolute prohibition against the possession or opium in any form suitable for smoking; ]f, therefore, the proceedings against Hi-; present appellants had been prior to the legislation of 190S, there could hav* been absolutely no answer to them/'
His Honor then went on to review the legislation of 11)08, which repealed all previous enactments upon the subject. The proceedings in the cases under appeal were taken under ''The Customs Act, 1008," but it was necessary to consider first the provisions of The Opium Act, 1008." The fifth section of this Act took the place of Ihe second section of the Act of 1002, but did not replace it in the sense of reproducing either its language or its effect. To establish an offence under the second subsection of this section, his Honor held, it was clearly necessary to show that the opium found in the possession of the person ■charged had been importel or purchased in breach of the previous provision of the Act. The person charged could also establish, as a good affirmative defence, that he had not a guilty mind. It would be a good defence 10 an information under sub-section 2 of section o of "The Opium Act, 1008," to show that the opium found in the possession of the person charged had been imported o r purchased by him prior to August 4, 1008, on which date the Consolidated Legislation of 1008 came into operation, since in that case it could not have been imported or purchased in contravention of the provisions of that Act. "Probably the person charged might by virtue of section 20 of "f h-> Acts Interpretation Act, 1008." still fall within the meshes of the law, hut it must he unfler the repealed Acts, and not under the Act of 1008. It is therefore, 1 think, clear that the facts found by the Magistrate in the present ■would not support convictions under sub-section 2 of section 5 of 'The Opium Act, 1008.'"
But these proceedings were under s J lion 230 of "The Customs Law Act, MOS," and it was necessary to examine the provision of that enactment, which his Honor did at length, concluding by holding that the offence in the section of the Act under which the information wn« laid could only be established by proof that the person charged had "knowingly" acquired possession of goods prohibited or restricted by or uncustomed, under "The Custom's Law l!HI8." There was no pretence (hat in J the present proceedings there was any j evidence of guilty knoT»'sdge on the part of cither of the appellants other than such inference as might be drawn from the possession by each of them of opium in a prohibited form. Counsel for the respondent contended, however, that the burden of proof that the ip' pellants had not guilty knowledge lav upon them, and that. a 6 thev failed to discharge this burden, they'were properly convicted. In support of this contention counsel relied upon the principle stated by the Magistrate to be the ground of his adjudication, and noon the 2!Mth section of "The Customs Law Act, inns." TTis Honor, howevc considered that (his section could not apply in any case where the Statute made guiltv knowledge an essential clement of (he offence. To apply the provision of (his section in such a cara would be to wipe out from the Statute the .word "knowingly," which always throws the burden of proof upon the Crown. T„ hold (hat. where the offence enacted by the Statute is "knowingly" doing a certain act. the burden of proof was bv section 2114 (brown upon the person charged would therefore be to give no effect whatever lo lhat word 'To h'ol,l thar where (he burden of proof of guilty knowledge lies upon tin prosecution, that burden transferred from the prosecution to the person charged, because whether or not the person charged has guilty knowledge is a fact peculiarly within 'its own know- ledge, is not merely a contradiction in term, but is a direct negation of (he principles laid down bv (he hbdicn authority. No doubt, whether o r not guilty knowledge has been proved ,is generally a matter of inference for established facts. But here there were no facts proved from which the Magistrate could properly have inferred" guilty Knowledge, nor dfSdie Tiase his adjudication upon that ground. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, and the conviction must be quashed in each case. I donot think that those niv cases in which costs should be allowed i against respondent, who is a public offi- 1 cer. ft was hie duty to know, and
he may be assumed to have known the construction put by the Court upon ■tin- Statutes which were repealed oy the
legislation of 1908. It was perhaps his duty to ascertain from the report of the Commissioners what alterations in the Customs laws were made by the .Consolidated Statutes. If lie read" that report, he found nothing in it to indicate that the law had been altered in this respect. It may be safely inferred that the Commissioners were not tlk-mi selves aware that they had altered the law. The respondent was therefore justified in assuming that he had a dear case against the appellants, which i: was his duty to bring. The ap.K'llanU-, on the other hand, bv their own con duct, slewed that I hey inleude-l to break the law and that they thought they, were doing so. They may hiiiv done so, but it has not been proved. They have escaped by reason of an accidental alteration in the law which they cannot have known, and which wis ertainu not i.itended by the l/'irislatun-."
Mr. Ilutclien appeared for Won. Nee, Mr. A. II hnstone (Malonc. Anderson and Johnstone) for Joe Yah.' tad Air. T. S. Weston. Crown Prns-.-eutor, for iho respondent. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 271, 22 December 1909, Page 4
Tom Wing Kee, who deserted from the steamer Rotorua on the 4th inst,. was arrested a couple of nights ago at Midhirst. his home, and was remanded to appear at Wellington on
a charge of desertion. Constable Bl easel has gone down to the Empire
City with him, so Constable Liston is here again from the Te Wora wilds. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 231, 28 March 1912, Page 3
On Saturday Mr. Chong gave some
interesting reminiscences of the erection of the lust butter factory in
Taranaki at Jiltham. He had decided to have the factory's machinery
driven by water power, and to obtain the necessary power a tunnel had to
be driven. This was let to contractors, who, however, encountered so
many big rocks that they gave up the job. Mr. Chong,
however, nothing daunted, undertook the work himself, and his quaint
description very much amused those present. He said he ordered about
401b of dynamite and went into the tunnel himself. As lie had been
informed that dynamite was better if kept warm, he always carried his
supply in his trousers' pocket. Many were horrified, and told him he
would be blown up—but he was not. Moreover, he succeeded in putting the
tunnel through, although it was a tremendously difficult job
. Present-day settlers in Taranaki, except perhaps those in the backblocks, can hardly realise the hardship, and disabilties the early settlers lahor There was little monev, and there were no metalled roads or railwavs. or any of those conveniences which follow in the train of civilization. The women bad to work as hard as the men, and many a settler owed a good deal of his present prosperity to the solid work put m by his wife. Mr Chong instanced an vain pie of this on Saturday. When in business at Inglewood, an old German woman came into his store earrying on her back a bag of fungus, which she had earned m this fashion from beyond Tariki. She received 14s for this, and as he said there was no food at home she immediately invested on flour, some sugar and some tea, which she threw on her back and then set out on her return journey.
.Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 221, 24 January 1911, Page 4
. Present-day settlers in Taranaki, except perhaps those in the backblocks, can hardly realise the hardship, and disabilties the early settlers lahor There was little monev, and there were no metalled roads or railwavs. or any of those conveniences which follow in the train of civilization. The women bad to work as hard as the men, and many a settler owed a good deal of his present prosperity to the solid work put m by his wife. Mr Chong instanced an vain pie of this on Saturday. When in business at Inglewood, an old German woman came into his store earrying on her back a bag of fungus, which she had earned m this fashion from beyond Tariki. She received 14s for this, and as he said there was no food at home she immediately invested on flour, some sugar and some tea, which she threw on her back and then set out on her return journey.
.Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 221, 24 January 1911, Page 4
A CHINESE PUZZLE.
SEQUEL TO A BANKRUPTCY. THE 'WAYS OF THE CHINKSE. Nearly the whole morning was occupied at the Supreme Court yesterday in a ca-e -which involved the sum of ;C27 los lying at the Bank of Australasia, Manaia. His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards presided. The case was the outcome of the bankruptcy of a Chinese fruiterer named Lue 'Moon 1.-un, and, among other things, it served to show the ease with which the Celestials can change their names to suit circumstances, many of the witnesses having three or four names. Mr. Ah Chang, the sole creditor in
the bankruptcy, for whom Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared, sought for an order that the £27 15s should be handed over to the assignee as part of the assets and that in the event of it being held
a partnership existed some portion of the partnership assets should be handed over also, or il it were held that bankrupt was an employee some portion of his wages should be set aside.
Mr. D. Hutchen appeared for the defendant, -whose defence was that the money was held in trust, having been sent by his brother-in-law at Pahiatua for defendant to transmit to his brother at Tahiti as passage money to China. Mr.' TSudge, Official Assignee, deposed that bankrupt in February. 15115, in his sworn statement stated that he received C2 per week wages and found. There were no tangible assets in the estate and no dividend was paid. To Mr. Hutchen: The claim was €132 l!!s Sd less a contra account of .Cll 14s fid.
All Chang, merchant, of Wellington, the sole creditor, was sworn in tho usual wav, and in cross-examination by Mr. Hntchen lie admitted that the debt was incurred in -Masterton in I MO. Defendant had since reduced the debt by working for witness at Manaia. where lie left -witness and went into business on s own account. Witness had failed in judu'inent summons proceedings before the bankruptcy. hue day, Chinese interpreter, of Wellington, gave evidence that about August. 1914, defendant in the course of conversation with witness said be would rather throw the monev away than p.rv Ah Chang. Defendant 'also said that he was doing very well in business, hi't wouid sov that lie was working on wages for hue Tin Kit. who owned the business. To Mr. ITiilclien: Defendant told him that he was in partnership with hn-> ;n Kit. Mr. TTntchen hero hand"J witness some
letters -with certificated translations from the Secretary to the Chinese Consul. The interpreter had considerable trouble in interpreting thorn, remarking that lie could not interpret wriiiiv.', but finally agreed that they rospc'ih'ov notified the forwarding of Co, £0 and CIS io defendant from his brother-in-law at Pahiatun, to be forwarded to another brother in Tahiti, as passage money for the latter to China.
Mr. H. C. M. McTvor, manager of the Bank of Australasia at Manaia, deposed that bankrupt had opened an account in .August, ]f>.l3, and'in January. KIM. he opened a second private account both in the name of Daniel Louis, and there was still £27 los standing to the credit of the latter account. Tu October, 1!)13, a further account was opened in the name of Daniel houis and Co., the partners being Laniel houis and James houis, the latter being hue Tin Kit. Since October, 1(114, cither niirtv operated the account. The day after the bankruptcy defendant drew a cheque for .€lB on the account in credit, but payment was refused. Bankrupt had told "witness that he was Daniel Louis.
The bankrupt Lup Moon Lira required flic services of an interpreter, and Mr. Chew Chong acted. After witness had been sworn in the Cliinese fashion by blowing out a lighted match, it was found that tlie interpreter was very deaf. Witness accordingly did without an Interpreter, and understood the. questions exceedingly well. lie deposed to receiving C2B in three instalments from ]iis brother-in-law at Pahialua for transmission to his brother at Tahiti. Tie paid the money into the bank, though not at the time it was received. To His Honor: When he started business he was working for Daniel Louis, who was Luc Tin Kit. Tic had authority from his employer to use the name of Daniel Louis in signing cheques. Mr. 'McTvor was here questioned, and he stated that the bankrupt had fold him his own name was Daniel Louis, and be added to witness: t's no gnod vou changing vour name every five minutes." His Honor pointed out that the money hud heen placed in an account, wliich hail been treated as a current account. To His Honor: Witness said that his brotiier-in-law, a gardener in Pnliiafna, did not know how to send the mone.v to Tahiti.
His TTonor: Do, you expect me to be lioie tliis nonsense?
Jn reply to 'Vb:. Johnstone, he stated that he iiad not told ,Mr. Mclvor that he'was in partnership with T.ue Tin Kit. While working lor the latter the business paid. lie did not know that lie had lost JJ'27O while working for Ah Chang.
Shan Wat On, a market gardener at i'ahiatua. and brother-in-law of she plaintiff, ivhen asked if he understood Knglish gazed stolidly at the Bench, and did: not appear to understand several ([ltc-thiiis put to him bv the Judge, who asked how he sold his' vegetables. T.ue Jay, ,i witness for the plaintiff, was press, d into service, and "witness gave evidence to the effect that lie, had'sent bankrupt the three instalments as stilted to forward to his brother, Lue 'Moon Hun at Tahiti for passage money to China, lie recognised the letters produced.
Ilis Honor said, he did not place [ y reliance on the letters. l'n cross-examination, Mr. Johnstone
asked: How inuchec you send for passage to China V Witness, who appeared to be caught off his guard, said in fair Knglish C2S. He also said that Lue Moon Lun was now in China. He could not say why he had not: sent tin; money direct to Lue Moon Lull. His Honor took wilne-s in band and the intei-pivlter was again culled, on. In reply, witness said fhat ''Lue Moon Sun end no address fo him." His "Honor: Tell him if lie does not
answer I he question I'll punish him. Witness then slid he understood more nev would lie wanted than he sent. His Honoi: Of course T don't, believe "Lue Till Kit depo-e.l fhat his business
eon-in, and wrote from Manaia. asl;iii<>; wiuie-s for a job. Witne-s was too llnsv to come up from Wellington, so lie i; hid l."e 'Moon lain to lea-v a shoo f i- liiiii. lie ao-poini, d him liiaiir.-.eV ai |.er wed:. Ikinkrupt liad aiilkerilv to mem wiiues-.'s name to the lease and. to :-i:;n choipies a■< 1). I.ouis. Xiuo-, came later and took charce ai, Mu- To .Mr. .loliii-do.-.e: Witney v/:is Tai. .Mi Cham; laid three name's al-o. His Honor here tcvafme-! witne-s Willi iniori'-onment to ;>ivo hiiu tunc t.u us I). I.ouis. l!an;-ruot's wae.es were paid mil of cash, Aits Hie bankruptcy wiine--s siened as ).ue Tin Kit bemuse iiie liiinkniiitev spoil,'- his name. Hi-. Honor, 'in civil,: jud-mmt, said there uus n? '.!'.'"'>t ,c was a case of
fraud on bankrupt's part. He held that the money was the property of bankrupt and must pass to the assignee as an asset. lie also made an order for bunkriq.t to pay .Clo before the expiration of three months to the assignee. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 293, 20 May 1915, Page 7 http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TDN19150520.2.37&cl=search&srpos=4&e=-------100-TDN-1----0chong+manaia--&st=1
WEDDING BELLS.
On Thursday afternoon there was a large gathering of friends and well'wishers in fSp Mary's Churqh to witness the manage of Miss Amy Chong, eldest daughter of Mr and Mrs Chong, to Mr Walter Wilkes. The Rev. F. G. Evans, the vicar, officiated. For many years Miss Chong had been a member of the choir, and the service was fully choral, Mr A. E. Fletcher being the organist. Choir members also showed their appreciation of Miss Chong by decorating the., church with arum lilies. The bride,, was attired in a dress of soft white silk, the skirt being made with a panel of chiffon, the bodice having a transparent yoke, and trimmed with orange blossoms md chiffon roses. She also wore a wreath of orange blossoms /and a ;ulle veil, and carried a prayer-book, bound in white. The bridesmaids were 'Miss Mauid Chong and Miss Ethel Wilkes (sister of the bride groom). They were dressed in white silk dresses, trimmed with chiffon, and green chiffon. sashes and hats to match. Their bouquets were of yellow azaleas and crinoline crocuses, with trailers of white clematis. wore a gold brooch, the gift of the bridegroom. Mr Little acted as best man, arid Mr Wild as groomsman. Mrs Chong mother of the bride wore a dress of heliotrope brocaded .silk, with black hat relieved! "with heliotrope; Mrs Raymond(Wairarapa), aunt of the bride, wore a cream embroidered voile and black frat. At a reception, held at the home of the bride's parents, the main toast was proposed by the Rev. F.-G. Evans. The presents were numerous. Mr and Mrs Wiikes left for Wanganui in the .afternoon on their honeymoon. The bride's traveling dress was of stylish grey tweed, with facings of' white satin, and a pretty pink chiffon hat.
Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13281, 28 September 1906, Page 6
On Thursday afternoon there was a large gathering of friends and well'wishers in fSp Mary's Churqh to witness the manage of Miss Amy Chong, eldest daughter of Mr and Mrs Chong, to Mr Walter Wilkes. The Rev. F. G. Evans, the vicar, officiated. For many years Miss Chong had been a member of the choir, and the service was fully choral, Mr A. E. Fletcher being the organist. Choir members also showed their appreciation of Miss Chong by decorating the., church with arum lilies. The bride,, was attired in a dress of soft white silk, the skirt being made with a panel of chiffon, the bodice having a transparent yoke, and trimmed with orange blossoms md chiffon roses. She also wore a wreath of orange blossoms /and a ;ulle veil, and carried a prayer-book, bound in white. The bridesmaids were 'Miss Mauid Chong and Miss Ethel Wilkes (sister of the bride groom). They were dressed in white silk dresses, trimmed with chiffon, and green chiffon. sashes and hats to match. Their bouquets were of yellow azaleas and crinoline crocuses, with trailers of white clematis. wore a gold brooch, the gift of the bridegroom. Mr Little acted as best man, arid Mr Wild as groomsman. Mrs Chong mother of the bride wore a dress of heliotrope brocaded .silk, with black hat relieved! "with heliotrope; Mrs Raymond(Wairarapa), aunt of the bride, wore a cream embroidered voile and black frat. At a reception, held at the home of the bride's parents, the main toast was proposed by the Rev. F.-G. Evans. The presents were numerous. Mr and Mrs Wiikes left for Wanganui in the .afternoon on their honeymoon. The bride's traveling dress was of stylish grey tweed, with facings of' white satin, and a pretty pink chiffon hat.
Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13281, 28 September 1906, Page 6
BIRTH. CHONG.—On the 18th November, the wife of Mr. Chew Chong, of a daughter. Taranaki Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 2360, 20 November 1875, Page 2
BIRTH. CHONG.— On the 22nd May, the wife of Mr. Chew Choxg, of a son.
Taranaki Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3130, 24 May 1879, Page 2
BIRTH. CHONG.— On the 18th July, the wife of Mr. Chew Chong, of a son.
Taranaki Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3499, 29 July 1880, Page 2
BIRTHS. CHEW CHONG.— On the 27th August, the wife of Mr. Chew Chong, of a daughter.
Taranaki Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 4122, 28 August 1882, Page 2
DEATH. CHONG. On the Ist February, BLANCH Elizabeth, infant daughter o£ Mr. Chew C'houg, aged ten weeks Taranaki Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 2381, 2 February 1876, Page 2
BIRTH. CHONG.— On the 22nd May, the wife of Mr. Chew Choxg, of a son.
Taranaki Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3130, 24 May 1879, Page 2
BIRTH. CHONG.— On the 18th July, the wife of Mr. Chew Chong, of a son.
Taranaki Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3499, 29 July 1880, Page 2
BIRTHS. CHEW CHONG.— On the 27th August, the wife of Mr. Chew Chong, of a daughter.
Taranaki Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 4122, 28 August 1882, Page 2
DEATH. CHONG. On the Ist February, BLANCH Elizabeth, infant daughter o£ Mr. Chew C'houg, aged ten weeks Taranaki Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 2381, 2 February 1876, Page 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)