Post by NZBC on May 17, 2015 19:21:21 GMT 12
SLY GROG-SELLING.
CHAUOE AGAINST A CHINAMAN. Ah Wong, said to bo concerned in a firm of Chiiicwa merchants in Wellington, was charged At the hiL'i/>tmto's Court before Dr. A, M' Arthur, b.M., yeatorduy, with having sold v bottlo of gin to Lock lliim without a license, on 2ord November. Sub -Inspector O'Donovan prosecuted, I and Mr. Jellicoo defended. After wo wont to press tho following additional evidence waa given Young Sou, lea&ee of the premises occupied by Sing Keo and Co., in which tho I liquor was alleged to havo been sold, depoecd that he owned shops in several parts of New Zealand. He usually purchased liquor shortly before Christmas to distribute to his various fc&foiblishinents in the country as preaonta for his customer*). His distributing centres wero Wellington, Christchurch, Duneclih, and AuckTiuul. From Wellington witness supplied his shops at Paltnexston, Foil ding, Marton, Dannovirko, and Napier. Oil tho first moon of January, 1904, hi« countrymen would be celebrating the Chinese New Year, and he had purchased from Wollorinuit and Co., spirit merchants, /several lo(« of .spirits for tho festive season. Mr. Jellicoe intimated that he waa prepared to put. in the, in voices if any corroboration of the purchase* of liquor waa required by the police. buß-Inspeotor O'Donovan produced a nnmber of invoices token by vie polioo from witness's premise* when they were raided. Addressing witness, he said 1 have hero an invoico dated 11th February, 1903, covering a purclut.se of 60 bottl«9 of "night-cap gin. Was that intended for Chrwtmns? Witness 1 1 buy wholewalo and divide the purchase at cast price afterwards. Do you give this liquor to persons, without discrimination, or only to friends T All /or my Irienda. Is Lock Ham (the man who obtained tho liquor from defendant) a friend of yours? Yes. Did he ever give you an order for a case No. Tho Sub -Inspector went onto refer to invoices and to question witness about purchases of five causes of brandy and one of gin in March lust, four casea of gin three days afterwards, «nd five cases of gin on 19th May. Tho witness replied that he was in Auckland about that time. Duck King, fruiterer, deposed that at one- time ho stayed at the promise* of Sing Kee and Co., and had witnessed the sale of liquor. On one occasion Georgo Yon Chong was supplied with it. Georgo Yen Chong, gardener, stated tJiAt he hod been a customer of Sing Koo and Co. for many yeat*, and frequently purchased liquor there. The hist oocasion on which he madu a purchase waa about three months ago, when ho purchased a bottle of gin for 6s 3d. Mr. Jouicoe objected' to the evidence of tho last two witnesses as being irrelevant on account of ita itaving no connection with the preaent case. Sub-Inspector O'Donovan replied that it was relevant because it showed tho system under which. ;the linuor was sold. He anticipated that the defenoo sot up would be that tho liquor was disbuived gratuitously. IT is Worship mid he had a public duty to perform, and he would consider tho question raised. ,It was for him to find out whether this charge wao proved or not. Then it was also for him to consider whether the evidence that bad been given by the hurt two witnwaai was of mich a nature that it ought to influence him in deciding the preaent case* At this etoge the' com was adjourned until 7.30, when His Worship ovid he would reply to tho point raised. Upon resuming «t 7.30. 'His Worship ruled tliat the evidence wua. inadmissible, and citod several authorities in support of lun decision. Detective Kemp deposed, to having seen Lock Ham enter the premises of Sing Keo and Co. and subsequently como out with a parcel and a bottle of Kin, which he placed in his cart. Lock Ham afterwards went to Haining-street and then to Newtown. Witness and Constable Griffiths followed. The last- mentioned eventually recovered tlio gin from tho cart. Later in the day witness, in company with Griffiths, borgt. Mackay, and Constables Luko and Lopdell, searched the premiaew of Sing K*e and Co. and found 2 cases of Chinese wine containing 95 pint bottles, 7 cases of Chinese brandy containing 116 jara, 10 bottle* of port wine, 75 bottles of gin, 60 bottles of "thr«€-*tar" brandy, 3 quart bottles of beer, and a quantity of empty cases and bottles. Constable Griffiths, of the Newtown Police Station, confirmed these statements. After tho first cas« of gin was brought to light Chung Tack Fong mentioned that there wus nothing else to find, but a further searou revealed brandy, wino, etc., ptc. Henry M'Keiuste, traveller for Wollet}man and Co., deposed that the bills (produced) wero those unually i&aued by his firm. He rocognised the documents as covoring sales ofliquor to Young Sow. Mr. Jellicoe, in his address for the defence, pointed o_ut that nothing had bcon inforrcd against Young Sow, He was a merchant in a largo way, and it was quite in keeping with ordinary business customs thut ho should have tho liquor in stock fo.r distribution in various parts of tho colony. The bottle of gin alleged to havo been purchased by Lock How was really a present. Tho money ho threw down was plnced in an envelope and kept for him, and there was no suggestion that ho was in collusion with tho police. Perhaps ho thought he should not have taken the liquor without paying for it. Counsel would call evidence to •show that the very first annwer givon by Lock How waa that he threw the money on tho counter afterwards ho said tluit tho amount was 5s 3d. Two of his (counsel's) interpreters would bear out this statement. Ah Wong was tho'firnt witness called for tho defence. Mr. Jellicoe applied to havo one of his interpreters as medium between witnesses and examining counsel. Sub-Initpector O'Donovan objected. He said the person Mr. Jellicoo wished to act as interpreter- had displayed a palpable bias throughout the case. Mr. Jellicoe denied the right of the police to dictate who the interpreter should be. His Worship ruled that' Shack Home (who had. been acting as interpreter during the hearing- of tho caso up to this stage) should' continue. Ho did not want to infer anything as to the ability of counsel's nominee*, but Homo had deen very successful and apparently very impartial. Mr. Jellicoe said he would withdraw his nominee, but still denied the right of tho police "to dictate terms." Ah Wong, proceeding, stated that Lock Ham cftlled at tho shop of Sing Kee and Co., and purchased a jar of jam Witness then asked him if ho was going to China daring the next week, and h« -eplied that he wa*. Witness asked him to have a drink, but he refused. Wit ness afterwards brought out a bottlo of gin and gave it to him, snying "That is a present." Lock Ham took the bottle and leit tho shop. Subsequently witness found the 5s 3d or the counter. Cross-examined by Bub-Inspecto» O'Donovan, witness said he did not give liquor to ev*ery friend going to China. He kept the liquor for his own purposes. Those "purposes" meant to send it to friends in the country. Ho had instructions from his boßs not to sell liquor. His boss gavp him thoso instruction now and again. Look Hunt was a friend of witness's, and h* (wttaess) did not know
why ho should have given evidence which was untruo. Ah Men gave evidence concerning the transactions between defendant and Lock Hum in Sing Kce and Co.'h shop on tho dale in question. Defendant sold a jar of juin to Hum, and then gave him a bottle of gin as a present on the eve of his going to China. Mr. Jellicoe Yes, v present something liko tho National puise. Witness, continuing, said lm heard the dofendunt say that ho found the money (5s 3d) after Lock Ham had left tho promises. Long Keo, who deposed that ho was a business niun living at Sing Kee and Co.'s premises, gave similar evidence to that given by tho last witness. Benjamin Wang Tape, a utorchant carrying on biueineßs in Dunedin, deposed that he was a student in both the English and Chinese languages. He was in Court when Lock Ham was examined by the interpretation of Tong How. Lock Ham t>nid, when giving evidence, "J threw the money down and ran." The interpreter said "I paid 5s 3d." Witness was watching the evidence, and took notes of it. Cross-oxamined, witness said ho came to Wellington about tho identification of a brother who recently arrived in the colony. He was asked by Ah Wong to act as interpreter for the defence in the prosent caso. Lock Ham may have said in his evidence at a later period that he put down 6s 3d. Thomas Quoi, merchant, residing at Auckland, said he knew there was a Chinese feud in Wellington, and he Camo down to interpret for Mr. Jellicoe. He then corroborated the evidence of tho lust witness. This closed the jase. Sub Inspector O'Donovan directed his Worship's attention to section 160 of the Licensing Act, and said in the evont of a conviction, forfeiture of the liquor should follow. His Worship, »t 10.15 p.m., reserved his decision until 10 o'clock this morning. JUDGMENT OF THE MAGISTRATE. A FINE OF £20 IMPOSED AND LIQUOR FORFEITED. NOTICE OF APPEAL GIVEN. His Worship delivered his judgment this morning. After outlining the facts of tho cose ho said: Lock Hum ewcars positively that on tho date -in the information he purchased a bottle of gin from tho defendant and paid 6s 3d for it. This is denied by tho accused, who claims that ho gave the gin as a present to Lock Ham prior to hia contemplated doparturo lor China, and Lock Ham swears that only, he and accused wore in tho shop at the time of thq transaction, and tlvat tho gin w«« not given ac a pnwont, while the accused in hi*» defence produces two witnesses ,to testify to tho facts that no money passed and that the transaction was in tho nature of a gift. It is admitted that tho amount of 5* 3d was found on tho counter after the departure of Lock Ham. I am satwßed* that accused's two witnesses were at least not there during tho whole of the transaction, and that they were may bo unconsciously—testifying to wluit accused told them at a time subsequent to the transaction. The wholo issue in my opinion lies between Lock Ham and the accused. There is no insinuation that Lock Hnm acted in other than a bona fide manner throughout, and ho waa neither the instrument of the police nor was he tho tool of other Chln«*». His story is a plain unvarnished tnlo of a man who bought a bottle of gin and paid 5a 3d for it. On tho other hand wo have tho accused admitting that ho found tho money on the counter, notwithstanding ho told Lock I£am ho was giving the gin as a present. Accused nlso denied to tbo police when marching that there was any liquor on tho premise*, although a largo quantity won found. Ho aUo denied tho evidence of two constables that ho had accompanied them upstairs and pointed out tho sleeping rooms of himself and others. I have no hesitation in concluding that Ah Wong's explanation of the transaction is a fabrication, that Lock Hani's story U truo, and that the transaction wan a «ale pure and simple. I cannot accept Ypuag Sou's explanation of the presence of bo »rgo a quantity of liquor on his premises. The accused will bo found Guilty, and fined in tho sum of £20 juvd I hereby order tho liquor which has been mi^cd nnd the v<*eel» containing such liquor to be forfeited, i Mr. Jellicoo gave notice of appeal. Evening Post, Volume LXVI, Issue 136, 5 December 1903, Page 2 paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=EP19031205.2.5&srpos=178&e=-------100--101----0wong+fruiterer+wellington--
CHAUOE AGAINST A CHINAMAN. Ah Wong, said to bo concerned in a firm of Chiiicwa merchants in Wellington, was charged At the hiL'i/>tmto's Court before Dr. A, M' Arthur, b.M., yeatorduy, with having sold v bottlo of gin to Lock lliim without a license, on 2ord November. Sub -Inspector O'Donovan prosecuted, I and Mr. Jellicoo defended. After wo wont to press tho following additional evidence waa given Young Sou, lea&ee of the premises occupied by Sing Keo and Co., in which tho I liquor was alleged to havo been sold, depoecd that he owned shops in several parts of New Zealand. He usually purchased liquor shortly before Christmas to distribute to his various fc&foiblishinents in the country as preaonta for his customer*). His distributing centres wero Wellington, Christchurch, Duneclih, and AuckTiuul. From Wellington witness supplied his shops at Paltnexston, Foil ding, Marton, Dannovirko, and Napier. Oil tho first moon of January, 1904, hi« countrymen would be celebrating the Chinese New Year, and he had purchased from Wollorinuit and Co., spirit merchants, /several lo(« of .spirits for tho festive season. Mr. Jellicoe intimated that he waa prepared to put. in the, in voices if any corroboration of the purchase* of liquor waa required by the police. buß-Inspeotor O'Donovan produced a nnmber of invoices token by vie polioo from witness's premise* when they were raided. Addressing witness, he said 1 have hero an invoico dated 11th February, 1903, covering a purclut.se of 60 bottl«9 of "night-cap gin. Was that intended for Chrwtmns? Witness 1 1 buy wholewalo and divide the purchase at cast price afterwards. Do you give this liquor to persons, without discrimination, or only to friends T All /or my Irienda. Is Lock Ham (the man who obtained tho liquor from defendant) a friend of yours? Yes. Did he ever give you an order for a case No. Tho Sub -Inspector went onto refer to invoices and to question witness about purchases of five causes of brandy and one of gin in March lust, four casea of gin three days afterwards, «nd five cases of gin on 19th May. Tho witness replied that he was in Auckland about that time. Duck King, fruiterer, deposed that at one- time ho stayed at the promise* of Sing Kee and Co., and had witnessed the sale of liquor. On one occasion Georgo Yon Chong was supplied with it. Georgo Yen Chong, gardener, stated tJiAt he hod been a customer of Sing Koo and Co. for many yeat*, and frequently purchased liquor there. The hist oocasion on which he madu a purchase waa about three months ago, when ho purchased a bottle of gin for 6s 3d. Mr. Jouicoe objected' to the evidence of tho last two witnesses as being irrelevant on account of ita itaving no connection with the preaent case. Sub-Inspector O'Donovan replied that it was relevant because it showed tho system under which. ;the linuor was sold. He anticipated that the defenoo sot up would be that tho liquor was disbuived gratuitously. IT is Worship mid he had a public duty to perform, and he would consider tho question raised. ,It was for him to find out whether this charge wao proved or not. Then it was also for him to consider whether the evidence that bad been given by the hurt two witnwaai was of mich a nature that it ought to influence him in deciding the preaent case* At this etoge the' com was adjourned until 7.30, when His Worship ovid he would reply to tho point raised. Upon resuming «t 7.30. 'His Worship ruled tliat the evidence wua. inadmissible, and citod several authorities in support of lun decision. Detective Kemp deposed, to having seen Lock Ham enter the premises of Sing Keo and Co. and subsequently como out with a parcel and a bottle of Kin, which he placed in his cart. Lock Ham afterwards went to Haining-street and then to Newtown. Witness and Constable Griffiths followed. The last- mentioned eventually recovered tlio gin from tho cart. Later in the day witness, in company with Griffiths, borgt. Mackay, and Constables Luko and Lopdell, searched the premiaew of Sing K*e and Co. and found 2 cases of Chinese wine containing 95 pint bottles, 7 cases of Chinese brandy containing 116 jara, 10 bottle* of port wine, 75 bottles of gin, 60 bottles of "thr«€-*tar" brandy, 3 quart bottles of beer, and a quantity of empty cases and bottles. Constable Griffiths, of the Newtown Police Station, confirmed these statements. After tho first cas« of gin was brought to light Chung Tack Fong mentioned that there wus nothing else to find, but a further searou revealed brandy, wino, etc., ptc. Henry M'Keiuste, traveller for Wollet}man and Co., deposed that the bills (produced) wero those unually i&aued by his firm. He rocognised the documents as covoring sales ofliquor to Young Sow. Mr. Jellicoe, in his address for the defence, pointed o_ut that nothing had bcon inforrcd against Young Sow, He was a merchant in a largo way, and it was quite in keeping with ordinary business customs thut ho should have tho liquor in stock fo.r distribution in various parts of tho colony. The bottle of gin alleged to havo been purchased by Lock How was really a present. Tho money ho threw down was plnced in an envelope and kept for him, and there was no suggestion that ho was in collusion with tho police. Perhaps ho thought he should not have taken the liquor without paying for it. Counsel would call evidence to •show that the very first annwer givon by Lock How waa that he threw the money on tho counter afterwards ho said tluit tho amount was 5s 3d. Two of his (counsel's) interpreters would bear out this statement. Ah Wong was tho'firnt witness called for tho defence. Mr. Jellicoe applied to havo one of his interpreters as medium between witnesses and examining counsel. Sub-Initpector O'Donovan objected. He said the person Mr. Jellicoo wished to act as interpreter- had displayed a palpable bias throughout the case. Mr. Jellicoe denied the right of the police to dictate who the interpreter should be. His Worship ruled that' Shack Home (who had. been acting as interpreter during the hearing- of tho caso up to this stage) should' continue. Ho did not want to infer anything as to the ability of counsel's nominee*, but Homo had deen very successful and apparently very impartial. Mr. Jellicoe said he would withdraw his nominee, but still denied the right of tho police "to dictate terms." Ah Wong, proceeding, stated that Lock Ham cftlled at tho shop of Sing Kee and Co., and purchased a jar of jam Witness then asked him if ho was going to China daring the next week, and h« -eplied that he wa*. Witness asked him to have a drink, but he refused. Wit ness afterwards brought out a bottlo of gin and gave it to him, snying "That is a present." Lock Ham took the bottle and leit tho shop. Subsequently witness found the 5s 3d or the counter. Cross-examined by Bub-Inspecto» O'Donovan, witness said he did not give liquor to ev*ery friend going to China. He kept the liquor for his own purposes. Those "purposes" meant to send it to friends in the country. Ho had instructions from his boßs not to sell liquor. His boss gavp him thoso instruction now and again. Look Hunt was a friend of witness's, and h* (wttaess) did not know
why ho should have given evidence which was untruo. Ah Men gave evidence concerning the transactions between defendant and Lock Hum in Sing Kce and Co.'h shop on tho dale in question. Defendant sold a jar of juin to Hum, and then gave him a bottle of gin as a present on the eve of his going to China. Mr. Jellicoe Yes, v present something liko tho National puise. Witness, continuing, said lm heard the dofendunt say that ho found the money (5s 3d) after Lock Ham had left tho promises. Long Keo, who deposed that ho was a business niun living at Sing Kee and Co.'s premises, gave similar evidence to that given by tho last witness. Benjamin Wang Tape, a utorchant carrying on biueineßs in Dunedin, deposed that he was a student in both the English and Chinese languages. He was in Court when Lock Ham was examined by the interpretation of Tong How. Lock Ham t>nid, when giving evidence, "J threw the money down and ran." The interpreter said "I paid 5s 3d." Witness was watching the evidence, and took notes of it. Cross-oxamined, witness said ho came to Wellington about tho identification of a brother who recently arrived in the colony. He was asked by Ah Wong to act as interpreter for the defence in the prosent caso. Lock Ham may have said in his evidence at a later period that he put down 6s 3d. Thomas Quoi, merchant, residing at Auckland, said he knew there was a Chinese feud in Wellington, and he Camo down to interpret for Mr. Jellicoe. He then corroborated the evidence of tho lust witness. This closed the jase. Sub Inspector O'Donovan directed his Worship's attention to section 160 of the Licensing Act, and said in the evont of a conviction, forfeiture of the liquor should follow. His Worship, »t 10.15 p.m., reserved his decision until 10 o'clock this morning. JUDGMENT OF THE MAGISTRATE. A FINE OF £20 IMPOSED AND LIQUOR FORFEITED. NOTICE OF APPEAL GIVEN. His Worship delivered his judgment this morning. After outlining the facts of tho cose ho said: Lock Hum ewcars positively that on tho date -in the information he purchased a bottle of gin from tho defendant and paid 6s 3d for it. This is denied by tho accused, who claims that ho gave the gin as a present to Lock Ham prior to hia contemplated doparturo lor China, and Lock Ham swears that only, he and accused wore in tho shop at the time of thq transaction, and tlvat tho gin w«« not given ac a pnwont, while the accused in hi*» defence produces two witnesses ,to testify to tho facts that no money passed and that the transaction was in tho nature of a gift. It is admitted that tho amount of 5* 3d was found on tho counter after the departure of Lock Ham. I am satwßed* that accused's two witnesses were at least not there during tho whole of the transaction, and that they were may bo unconsciously—testifying to wluit accused told them at a time subsequent to the transaction. The wholo issue in my opinion lies between Lock Ham and the accused. There is no insinuation that Lock Hnm acted in other than a bona fide manner throughout, and ho waa neither the instrument of the police nor was he tho tool of other Chln«*». His story is a plain unvarnished tnlo of a man who bought a bottle of gin and paid 5a 3d for it. On tho other hand wo have tho accused admitting that ho found tho money on the counter, notwithstanding ho told Lock I£am ho was giving the gin as a present. Accused nlso denied to tbo police when marching that there was any liquor on tho premise*, although a largo quantity won found. Ho aUo denied tho evidence of two constables that ho had accompanied them upstairs and pointed out tho sleeping rooms of himself and others. I have no hesitation in concluding that Ah Wong's explanation of the transaction is a fabrication, that Lock Hani's story U truo, and that the transaction wan a «ale pure and simple. I cannot accept Ypuag Sou's explanation of the presence of bo »rgo a quantity of liquor on his premises. The accused will bo found Guilty, and fined in tho sum of £20 juvd I hereby order tho liquor which has been mi^cd nnd the v<*eel» containing such liquor to be forfeited, i Mr. Jellicoo gave notice of appeal. Evening Post, Volume LXVI, Issue 136, 5 December 1903, Page 2 paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=EP19031205.2.5&srpos=178&e=-------100--101----0wong+fruiterer+wellington--