Thursday, August 2, 2012


CHINAMAN ON TRIAL.FALSE PRETENCES ALLEGED. MONEY FOR RESIDENCE PERMITS. ACCUSED CHARGES FAMILY SPITE. Bewildering Chinese names and conflicting testimony concerning involved financial transactions made the task of the jury a difficult one at the Supreme Court to-day when the trial of Albert Hong Duk, an English-speaking Chinese clerk, on five charges of false pretences and two charges of theft, was continued. Mr. V. N. Hubble conducted the prosecution, and Mr. E. W. Schramm represented accused. It was alleged by Crown witnesses that Duk had obtained £92 12/G from a young Chinese, Sing Soo Ying, 'or Young, also known as Eong Quan Foon, by false pretences. Ying said he had paid the money to Duk so that extensions of his temporary residence permit of six months might be obtained from the Customs Department. No extension of the original permit, granted in 1920, was applied for or granted, and recently Yiiig went to gaol for overstaying his permit. As to the theft charges, involving a, total sum. of £33 2/4, accused was alleged to have failed to account for £30 paid to him by Wai Lee, for payment to W. H. Madill for rent and buildings, and £3 2/4 paid to him by Ah Hong, for payment to the Auckland Electric Power Board. The case for the Crown was completed this morning. "I Was Going to Surrender." Detective P. J. Nalder outlined the inquiries made in connection with the case, following the complaints made by Sin Soo Ying. Witness told accused that Ying had alleged that sums of money amounting to £100 had been obtained from him by accused for extensions of the temporary residence permit. Accused replied: "I have been waiting for a warrant to be issued, and then I was going to surrender myself." Accused also said he had given up housekeeping, as it was too expensive. An admission that he had never made an application for an extension of Ying's permit was made by accused, who said he had received only £19 from Ying. Of that amount, £1 7/6 was for a clock, and the remainder was a loan. Accused said he still owed the money to Ying. Witness asked him if he understood that it was alleged he had obtained money by false pretences. "It is the spite of the Fongs," was the reply made to the question by accused, continued Detective Nalder, "There are thirty to forty Fongs in Auckland, and they are going to try to get me into goal. They have told you lies." Witness then told accused that Lee Lum had complained that accused had obtained money from him by false pretences. Accused replied; "I heard about that," and said Lee Lum was one of Wai Lee's men. Subsequently, accused declined to have his statement taken down on the typewriter at the Detective Office. Questioned concerning the other charges, accused had stated that he borrowed money from a lot of his friends, and his affairs were all muddled. Accused said he believed Ah Hong had paid him £1 5/-, but that was for the Masonic Lodge. Case for the Defence. Mr. Schramm opened the case for the defence by calling accused, Albert Hong Duk, who said he was a clerk, and had been employed by Wai Lee till October last, over a period of four years. In 1925 Wai Lee instructed him to write out an application for two Chinese, so that they might get permits for months' residence in New Zealand. The money for Ying's passage from Fiji to Auckland, a sum of £0 10/-, was paid by Wai Lee. Since Ying had been in Auckland witness had received only £19 from him. The money was paid in three sums, £5, £9, and £5. Of that amount, two shillings and sixpence represented repayment of a loan to Ying, £1 7/G had been paid by witness for a clock bought for Ying, and £10 10/- had been paid to Ying by witness on December 27 or 28, last. "The latter amount was for payment of an account for Ying's new suit of clothes. None of the money paid by Ying to witness had been paid for extensions of the Customs Department permit. Ever since 1924 witness had been involved in financial transactions with other Chinese, including Wah Jue and Willie Fong. In June last, witness received a cheque' for £50 from Wai Lee, and he cashed it in company with Wah Jue. He had no communication with, Ying about that transaction. Wah Jue was now in China. "Another Chinese War." Accused, continuing his evidence, said he went to see Ying in Mount Eden gaol. Ho was accompanied by Charles Fong, Fong Bew, and Fonk Yuk Chin. A request was made by Ying that witness should send to Sydney for money to pay the fine. Ying also asked that Wai Lee be requested to go bondsman for him. The complainant, Sin Soo Ying, was one of the Fongs. Mr. Schramm: Is there any ill-feeling between yourself andHhe Fongs? Accused: There is a lot of ill-feeling. Mr. Schramm: It is not another Chinese civil war, is it?— Well, I think so. (Laughter.) Under cross-examination by Mr. Hubble, accused said Lj paid £5 to a solicitor in payment of an amount of £30. However, the solicitor got judgment gainst him for the balance of £25. Wai Lee lied when he said witness owed him £25, in respect of the money entrusted for payment to Madill. The whole story about witness not having paid the moned to Madill was a lie. The story about the Power Board money was also a lie. It was all due to the spite of the Fongs. Mr. Hubble: According to your story you got nothing for what you did, but they owe you ten shillings?— Yes. Is Wai Lee one of the Fongs?—No, but he is in connection with them. Were you getting any money for going up to the gaol with all these Fongs, your deadly enemies? —No. Charlie was a friend of mine, not an enemy. Then what about Charlie Fong's evidence against you —He told a lie, too. Is Quan Foon the same as Sin Soo' Young? —I don't know. He used to be Fong Foon. What had been said yesterday about the permit applying to S. S. Young was incorrect. Accused said the whole sum of £19 had been handed to him quite willingly by Ying. When Ying lent you £9. to go to the races, did you tell him that a warrant was out for his arrest for overstaying his permit?—No, because I did not know then that he was Sin 'S. Young. I thought he was Quan Foon,
But you told the Customs that Sin S. Young was in Palmerston North?— Yes, because Wah Juh (the absent Chinese) told me to say he was there. I suppose Sin Young was lying all through his evidence?— Yes, it was a made-up story. Accused denied having received £50 from Sin S. Ying or Young at any time. Constable Hinton was not present when the conversatiou which he (the constable) related in evidence took place. Mr. Hubble: Yon dui't suggest the constable deliberately manufactured that evidence? —Oh, no. Why did you leave Wai Lee's employment —Because of the Fongs. They were boycotting him because of me. This getting money from Chinese for extensions has been done before, and you knew about Charlie Lee's case?— Yes. He went to gaol on charges very similar to those made against you?— Yes. (Proceeding.) Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 112, 14 May 1929, Page 5

No comments:

Post a Comment