Post by NZBC on Jul 1, 2012 20:13:54 GMT 12
FAN TAN.
CHINESE ON TRIAL.
ARMED ROBBERY ALLEGED.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
Evidence of a highly interesting nature for the defence was given before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in the case 111 which two Chinese, Wong G'hee and Wong Yet, were charged with robbery in a fan tan school when armed with an offensive weapon. The defence was that one of the accused was the victim of cheating on the part of the banker. Mr. V. N. Hubble prosecuted for the Crown and Mr. L. P. Leary represented accused. Two interpreters were engaged. Detective F. J. Brad}' said he went to Helensvillo to arrest Wong Chee, but missed him. However, on searching his clothes he found a receipt from the Magistrate's Court for £6 11/2, dated October 10. Witness did not find a knife in the effects of either accused. "The defence is a set of facts quite different from those alleged by the Crown, and I propose to prove them to the hilt," said Mr. Leary in his address outlining the defence. "Wong Chee is a market gardener who lives ft Helensville. He is not a man who lives in opium and gambling dens. He goes to Auckland at week-ends for such diversions as the city affords these Chinese." On the week-end on which the alleged "raid" was carried out, Wong Chee arrived in town with enough money to pay his fine and to gamble to the extent of £10, continued Mr. Leary. He gave his fine money to a cousin of his, Ah Sun, so that the fine was paid actually before the money was stolen from the fan-tan school. Neither Chee nor Yet bad any plan at all when they were ill the den. When iiT funds Wong Chee was a heavier gambler than the average player. He played £2 on No. 1 and lost. He then staked two lots of £4 and lost. Cheating Alleged. "Chee noticed that the winner was always the number on which the bank would have to pay out the smallest amount," declared Mr. Leary. "Chee decided to investigate. He found that the banker was cheating. He told the banker as much, and took the money. It will be proved that no knoife was in the den. There was no suggestion of knives for some days after. Our story will be that part of the affair is pure invention—an elaborate tissue of falsehoods." Counsel added that Wong Chee only wanted back what he had lost. He had seen the banker with one of the beans in his hand. After he had taken the money Wong Chee attempted to find out who else had invested in the game, so that he could pay them back from the sum which, the defence submitted, was only £26 10/. Later Chee found fhat the Chinese were determined to make a case of the affair. A tissue of falsehood had been woven round both accused, the motive of those responsible being for the bankers to obtain immunity if they cheated. If anybody suggested in future that the bankers were cheating that person could be reminded that the two accused had been sent to gaol. "I saw him concealing a token in his palm and I tapped him on the head and told him that he was cheating me," said Wong Chee in evidence. "I said I wanted my money back. I was gambling more heavily than the others, and if the token had not been dropped I would have won." Witness denied that he had a knife or that he had threatened anybody. This Morning's Session. When the case was continued this morning, further evidence for the defence was called. Wong Yet, aged 37, unemployed market gardner, said he had been in New Zealand for 14 years. He now lived at the Quong Chew Club. He had once been convicted for being on premises used for opium smoking. He was not a smoker, but had gone there to see some relatives. He had been fined £12 10/. He did not want money to pay liis fine, because Ah Sun had paid it "for him by arrangement. He had not arranged to go to the fan tan den with Wong Cliee. "I did not have a knife with me, nor do I possess one," continued witness. "I did not see Wong Chee take the money, but I heard him explain that he had been cheated. He held the money in his right hand, and with his left hand in his pocket, he walked out. I did not see any knife. Gin Buck tried to stop Wong Chee, but Chee said, 'Don't stop me,' and Gin Buck let go. I had a pakapoo ticket in my hand, and I may have raised that in my excitement and asked what the trouble was." No Knife," Says Wong Yet. Witness said he did not receive any of the money from Wong Chee, nor was any of it used to pay his fine. He saw Wong Chee count the money, and Chee said there was £26 10/. Wong Chee said he was going to find out who the money belonged to and pay them. He considered he was entitled to £10 of the money because that was his part of the bidding in the bank, and he had been cheated. Later some of them went back into the den and nobody suggested that either Wong Chee or witness had nsed a knife. Nobody said that Wong Chee had stated he wanted the money to pay his fine. There was a lot of discussion as to whether the banker had cheated. It was some days later, said witness, that he first heard talk about a knife. Witness did not have a knife. Cross-examined by Mr. Hubble, witness said lie had not actually seen the bank cheating. It was generally recognised that if they cheated the betters made a grab for the money. A Chinese had told him three or four days later about the suggestion of knives bsing used.
Financial Record. Corroboration of Wong Yet and Wong Chee's stories that their fines had been paid by him was given by A. A. Sun. Ah King, partner of Wong Chee in a gardening venture at Helensville, eaid he was the elder and kept a record of Chee's drawings from the partnership. He could turn up the partnership books and refer to Wong Chee's drawings. The books were kept in Chinese. On the ninth day of-the ninth month there was a £16 drawing. Witness had acted as his partner's bajiker. Cross-examined, witness eaid his name was Wong Ah King—not Ah King. He was one of the tribe or clan known as Wong. It was arranged that during the luncheon adjournment the interpreters would compare dates on the Chinese calendar with those of an English calendar in an effort to show when Wong Chee drew money from his partner. Banker's Alleged Statement. Another witness for the defence, Ah Kong, who was in the gambling den on the night of the raid, said Wong Chee was very suspicious about the banker. He was at the back of the banker, watching very closely When Wong Chee said that he was being cheated, the banker said: "Oh, you can take your monev back if you like." Neither of the accused had a knife. "My name is Wong Kong as well as Ah Kong, and I am of the same olan as the two accused," said witness, when cross-examined by Mr. Hubble. Further evidence for the defence was given by Ah Foo,. another gardener. (Proceeding.) Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 28, 3 February 1933, Page 3
CHINESE ON TRIAL.
ARMED ROBBERY ALLEGED.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
Evidence of a highly interesting nature for the defence was given before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in the case 111 which two Chinese, Wong G'hee and Wong Yet, were charged with robbery in a fan tan school when armed with an offensive weapon. The defence was that one of the accused was the victim of cheating on the part of the banker. Mr. V. N. Hubble prosecuted for the Crown and Mr. L. P. Leary represented accused. Two interpreters were engaged. Detective F. J. Brad}' said he went to Helensvillo to arrest Wong Chee, but missed him. However, on searching his clothes he found a receipt from the Magistrate's Court for £6 11/2, dated October 10. Witness did not find a knife in the effects of either accused. "The defence is a set of facts quite different from those alleged by the Crown, and I propose to prove them to the hilt," said Mr. Leary in his address outlining the defence. "Wong Chee is a market gardener who lives ft Helensville. He is not a man who lives in opium and gambling dens. He goes to Auckland at week-ends for such diversions as the city affords these Chinese." On the week-end on which the alleged "raid" was carried out, Wong Chee arrived in town with enough money to pay his fine and to gamble to the extent of £10, continued Mr. Leary. He gave his fine money to a cousin of his, Ah Sun, so that the fine was paid actually before the money was stolen from the fan-tan school. Neither Chee nor Yet bad any plan at all when they were ill the den. When iiT funds Wong Chee was a heavier gambler than the average player. He played £2 on No. 1 and lost. He then staked two lots of £4 and lost. Cheating Alleged. "Chee noticed that the winner was always the number on which the bank would have to pay out the smallest amount," declared Mr. Leary. "Chee decided to investigate. He found that the banker was cheating. He told the banker as much, and took the money. It will be proved that no knoife was in the den. There was no suggestion of knives for some days after. Our story will be that part of the affair is pure invention—an elaborate tissue of falsehoods." Counsel added that Wong Chee only wanted back what he had lost. He had seen the banker with one of the beans in his hand. After he had taken the money Wong Chee attempted to find out who else had invested in the game, so that he could pay them back from the sum which, the defence submitted, was only £26 10/. Later Chee found fhat the Chinese were determined to make a case of the affair. A tissue of falsehood had been woven round both accused, the motive of those responsible being for the bankers to obtain immunity if they cheated. If anybody suggested in future that the bankers were cheating that person could be reminded that the two accused had been sent to gaol. "I saw him concealing a token in his palm and I tapped him on the head and told him that he was cheating me," said Wong Chee in evidence. "I said I wanted my money back. I was gambling more heavily than the others, and if the token had not been dropped I would have won." Witness denied that he had a knife or that he had threatened anybody. This Morning's Session. When the case was continued this morning, further evidence for the defence was called. Wong Yet, aged 37, unemployed market gardner, said he had been in New Zealand for 14 years. He now lived at the Quong Chew Club. He had once been convicted for being on premises used for opium smoking. He was not a smoker, but had gone there to see some relatives. He had been fined £12 10/. He did not want money to pay liis fine, because Ah Sun had paid it "for him by arrangement. He had not arranged to go to the fan tan den with Wong Cliee. "I did not have a knife with me, nor do I possess one," continued witness. "I did not see Wong Chee take the money, but I heard him explain that he had been cheated. He held the money in his right hand, and with his left hand in his pocket, he walked out. I did not see any knife. Gin Buck tried to stop Wong Chee, but Chee said, 'Don't stop me,' and Gin Buck let go. I had a pakapoo ticket in my hand, and I may have raised that in my excitement and asked what the trouble was." No Knife," Says Wong Yet. Witness said he did not receive any of the money from Wong Chee, nor was any of it used to pay his fine. He saw Wong Chee count the money, and Chee said there was £26 10/. Wong Chee said he was going to find out who the money belonged to and pay them. He considered he was entitled to £10 of the money because that was his part of the bidding in the bank, and he had been cheated. Later some of them went back into the den and nobody suggested that either Wong Chee or witness had nsed a knife. Nobody said that Wong Chee had stated he wanted the money to pay his fine. There was a lot of discussion as to whether the banker had cheated. It was some days later, said witness, that he first heard talk about a knife. Witness did not have a knife. Cross-examined by Mr. Hubble, witness said lie had not actually seen the bank cheating. It was generally recognised that if they cheated the betters made a grab for the money. A Chinese had told him three or four days later about the suggestion of knives bsing used.
Financial Record. Corroboration of Wong Yet and Wong Chee's stories that their fines had been paid by him was given by A. A. Sun. Ah King, partner of Wong Chee in a gardening venture at Helensville, eaid he was the elder and kept a record of Chee's drawings from the partnership. He could turn up the partnership books and refer to Wong Chee's drawings. The books were kept in Chinese. On the ninth day of-the ninth month there was a £16 drawing. Witness had acted as his partner's bajiker. Cross-examined, witness eaid his name was Wong Ah King—not Ah King. He was one of the tribe or clan known as Wong. It was arranged that during the luncheon adjournment the interpreters would compare dates on the Chinese calendar with those of an English calendar in an effort to show when Wong Chee drew money from his partner. Banker's Alleged Statement. Another witness for the defence, Ah Kong, who was in the gambling den on the night of the raid, said Wong Chee was very suspicious about the banker. He was at the back of the banker, watching very closely When Wong Chee said that he was being cheated, the banker said: "Oh, you can take your monev back if you like." Neither of the accused had a knife. "My name is Wong Kong as well as Ah Kong, and I am of the same olan as the two accused," said witness, when cross-examined by Mr. Hubble. Further evidence for the defence was given by Ah Foo,. another gardener. (Proceeding.) Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 28, 3 February 1933, Page 3