Post by NZBC on May 15, 2011 20:33:03 GMT 12
MOLESTING THE CHINAMEN
PROSECUTION AT ELTHAM. (From Our Own Correspondent.) At the Magistrate's Court, Eltham, on Wednesday, . before Mr Kenrick, S.M., Leonard Foster and Phillip Eva were charged with committing an assault on a Chinese laundryman named Chong Lee. Both of the defendants were represented by Mr Hopkins (Mr McVeagh), whilst Mr T. C. Fookes, of Stratford, conducted the prosecution. "*- Mr Chew Ghong interpreted. Foster pleaded guilty, whilst Eva pleaded not guilty. From the evidence it appeared that a number of young men, including the two defendants, had been conducting a tin-canning campaign at a friend's residence on the evening of the 25th January. At about 10.30 p.m. they were passing Chong Lee's laundry, and being rather full of liquor they knocKed at the Chinaman's window anoL.door until he came out to remonstrate with them. When Chong Lee appeared Foster seized him by the hands and dragged him out of the shop on to the footpath. Cotostable Wade gave evidence to this effect, and Foster admitted the fact. Constable Wade also stated that he saw defendant Eva strike Chong Lee a blow in the eye, whilst Foster held him. ' . / Eva denied this, and Foster also said that Eva did not strike the Chinaman, although he swore that somebody struck him, but he was unable to say who it was. < ' .; In giving judgment, Mr Kenrick, S.M., stated that these assaults upon the- Chinese were becoming a too fre?uent occurrence in different parts of he Dominion. The Chinese were a lawabiding, peaceful Jot of citizens, and were entitled to the protection of the law. In other districts where he (Mr Kenrick) had presided, he had warned miscreants that if a second assault on the Chinamen took place he would punish the offenders by imprisonment without the option of a fine. He wished to give the same warning to residents here. In the present charges he would inflict a fine of 40s 'and costs, amounting to 21s against Foster, who had pleaded guilty. As Eva had pleaded I not guilty, and had put the prosecu- ] tion to the expense of procuring the services of an interpreter, he would fine defendant Eva £3 and costs amounting to £3 12s Bd. The default would be one month's imprisonment in Eva's case, and 14 days' imprisonment in the case of Foster. Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LVIII, 3 February 1910, Page 8
PROSECUTION AT ELTHAM. (From Our Own Correspondent.) At the Magistrate's Court, Eltham, on Wednesday, . before Mr Kenrick, S.M., Leonard Foster and Phillip Eva were charged with committing an assault on a Chinese laundryman named Chong Lee. Both of the defendants were represented by Mr Hopkins (Mr McVeagh), whilst Mr T. C. Fookes, of Stratford, conducted the prosecution. "*- Mr Chew Ghong interpreted. Foster pleaded guilty, whilst Eva pleaded not guilty. From the evidence it appeared that a number of young men, including the two defendants, had been conducting a tin-canning campaign at a friend's residence on the evening of the 25th January. At about 10.30 p.m. they were passing Chong Lee's laundry, and being rather full of liquor they knocKed at the Chinaman's window anoL.door until he came out to remonstrate with them. When Chong Lee appeared Foster seized him by the hands and dragged him out of the shop on to the footpath. Cotostable Wade gave evidence to this effect, and Foster admitted the fact. Constable Wade also stated that he saw defendant Eva strike Chong Lee a blow in the eye, whilst Foster held him. ' . / Eva denied this, and Foster also said that Eva did not strike the Chinaman, although he swore that somebody struck him, but he was unable to say who it was. < ' .; In giving judgment, Mr Kenrick, S.M., stated that these assaults upon the- Chinese were becoming a too fre?uent occurrence in different parts of he Dominion. The Chinese were a lawabiding, peaceful Jot of citizens, and were entitled to the protection of the law. In other districts where he (Mr Kenrick) had presided, he had warned miscreants that if a second assault on the Chinamen took place he would punish the offenders by imprisonment without the option of a fine. He wished to give the same warning to residents here. In the present charges he would inflict a fine of 40s 'and costs, amounting to 21s against Foster, who had pleaded guilty. As Eva had pleaded I not guilty, and had put the prosecu- ] tion to the expense of procuring the services of an interpreter, he would fine defendant Eva £3 and costs amounting to £3 12s Bd. The default would be one month's imprisonment in Eva's case, and 14 days' imprisonment in the case of Foster. Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LVIII, 3 February 1910, Page 8