cattle in garden

[NZBC]

Ki Kay Stockley axd Others—Claim £42... ..Mr S Jackson, juri., for plaintifl, Mr. S. Hesketh for the defendant, Stockley, Mr. Tole for the otiier delendants. This was an action (part heard .last Court day) for -damage done to the plaintives market garden -by .trespass of the defendants cattle. The witnesses were chiefly Chinamen, who were.sworn in the following manner The interpreter, Ah Kew,- lighted-a lucifer match; which he held before Lue face of the The witness having aflirmed the truth. of- the evidence lit: was .ibont to blew out the 1 light. Theres was the. greatest difficulty in getting'. precise answers to the questions .put. -It appeared that the witnesses spoke diflerent dialects .of the Chinese language. The, questions- were-sometimes put an a form which they did not and were conveyed by the interpreter with equal difficulty. One witness in reply to a question whether he saw the cattle, in the garden before the Chinese New Year'sDay," (Sh February), the answer was - Every day before they most come. It appeared that Ah Quoi visited the garden on that day. The answer was, The cattle came, every day most. The obscurity of this English-in {Chinese form puzzled the l.learned. .counsel. One translated the first answer as meaning Almost every day before.they, came, "which might mean that -something.happened every day before they (witnesses .on-plaintiff) came, or, "These persons came every day before the trespass was done by the cattle. Another learued gentlemen said the answer proved as clear as i=an oath-m. the. light of a lucifer match could i.make.it; that:. Ah .Quoi. (one of the proprietors) went- before the cattle, ands after the damage, or before;.the -daina.c and after t the cattle; It- was made plain that ,1000 cabbages were damaged, that carrots ■■were: trampled: down before-'their*; time by the. -cows; who3e v" silver- sides itbey ...should have garnished -in the culinary) .course; of events. French beans" were. damaged,,*, .but. not... by sheep,- and broad beans were spared for bacon that grew. l elsewhere; Mr.; S. Jackson, jun., "asked, a Avi tuess; how v many ■'rows were -in a bed;-' The -witness-said >ho had no rows; in bed Being informed', tint-•'!. rows"of cabbages" was meant, the witness-said he -was not aAarsofanv rows among sWhenmore specifiea ly informed,- he -said he was not-aware that anynne put cabb-iges m beds. Another wi tuess,- examined by -Mr." Tole as to, the cattle=tracks,-va3 aske I whether they werediorses. :.The.reply.was,:No cows he' ;kn.?w by the cloven foot," and he grinned :at'the learned. oouDsel aa if he had, a special acquaintance with; that i kind of footmark.; ,'J'he interpreter said .the,witness did not un- derstand his.Cbiueec.- wifcuess and in-' teroreter charged.: their faces with au excruciating.--expressionsof- 1 difficulty in the attempt, eaclrrto deliver the other of intelli-; gible,meaning;:.and for a time the syllable ."chin;'.'.;,!',chiu,": "chin;" was audible in sibilation .through the precincts of the Court, i'L'he interpreter-had to ask a..dozen questions I to get one answer, and each question would be, closed with, the syllable liunyy.a song-like cadence. The .witness< made a dozen at-" .tempts before he succeeded« in giving au answer, that, complied- with the i logical law of::,.", excluded -muddle." It a physical strain on the part of the interpreter, to convey a sense of the answer and a like effort on the *1 part of counsel to put. (|uestions to the; interpreter. :.-j In i this-manner the whole of .the. day was occupied. .The witnesaea ..examined were Ah Ling; Ah Yak, .Ivou -Hinj;, and Ching Foo, James Mitcliell, a brick maker, for yome time, employed:.by the plaintiff, deposed 1 to seeing sixteen cows :m .r plaintifTa 1 garden about:the end.of: January last. He saw them there nearly every day for three weeks. He knew they.be;onged to three of- the. defendants .(Stockley,-: Morrow, and Maunsell). 1 In :cross;exannnation; he said,..there were some gapa in-the which the cattle .could enter./::.Defendant, :>Maunsell, had a cow that was shot, but eveu after it was shot lie saw it in the case had not buished when.the Court rose. New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6694, 2 May 1883, Page 3