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