WONG HOW BEFORE THE COURT

At the Port Adelaide Police Court on Friday morning Wong How, a Chinaman, al leged to be a prohibited immigrant, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Mr. F. V. Smith defended, and Mr. C. H. Powers appeared in behalf of the Commonwealth authorities. The charge was withdrawn on pay ment of costs and a fresh information sub stituted. Wong How was charged by Daniel Joseph McSweeney that he was an immigrant and had entered the Common wealth .within two years'before failing to pass the.education; test within the meaning of the Immigration Restriction Act and having failed to pass was declared a prohi bited immigrant found within the Com monwealth, in contravention, of. --the Act. He pleaded not guilty. Revenue Detective Daniel McSweeney said on June. 10 he visited a Chinese gar den 'at Pindon, and there saw the defen dant, who gave his name as Wong How, aged 22 years. Wong How said he had come. from Sydney, 'and that his father re sided there. Asked where his father coii'd be.found, Wong-How replied, 'He's dead.' Wong How could not' name the street, in which he bad resided in Sydney. Witness applied thedictation test in English. Wone How made no attempt to write the test ap plied.' Witness then arrested and cautioned him. By Mr. Smith— Ah Hee gave information as to Wong How being taught English by Ah Sing's daughter. The garden at Findon belonged to Ah Sing. Ah Hee acted as interpreter. For the defence, Mr. Snu'tii contended that his client was domiciled in Australia before the passing of the Act, and that' it would be for the Crown to prove that he had left Australia with animus, and had subsequently returned. He called Chin Pong, a cabinetmaker, who, through an interpreter, said he knew Wong How in Sydney about nine years ago, and also Wong How's father, who carried .on busi ness there. Witness saw Wong How in Adelaide early in the present year, and had since met -him casually. By Mr. Powers Witness was certain as to Wong. How's identity Ghung Sun, a gardener, residing a Glenelg, said he had seen Wong How in Syd ney seven' or eight years ago. Mr. Powers contended that it had not been shown defendant was not an immi grant. Wong How might have been in Sydney at the time stated, but that was not evidence of domicile. The S.M.— He was there three years, and he was met in. Adelaide early in January. Mr. Powers claimed this was insufficient proof of domicile. The S.M.— There is no evidence that he has been out of the Commonwealth. 'The evidence to me is that defendant has had a permanent home here. Judgment was reserved to a date to be fixed. Saturday 20 July 1912 The Register (Adelaide, SA)