WHO BOUGHT IT ?

[nzbc]

WHO BOUGHT IT
TWO CHINAMEN AND SOME FEU IT. 1
A CHINESE PUZZLE
MAGISTRATE ASKED TO SOLVE
Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., at the Feilding Court yesterday afternoon, Chew Lee, for whom Mr Graham appeared, was sued by S. Flight, represented by Mr Haggitt, for the recovery of £26 for the purchase of fruit from plaintiff's orchard. Hight deposed that Chew Lee had agreed to go to witness's orchard and inspect the fruit. Chew Lee agreed to buy the fruit, and paid £3 deposit, i Chew Lee was to pay a further £10 in cash, and witness was to take out the balance in stores. Witness had had no further dealings wi,th any i other Chinamen, and had not bor- I rowed £3: from any Chinaman. To Mi- Graham: Chew Lee did not say lie did not want the fruit. When Lee went for the fruit, he brought another Chinaman with him. Witness's wife wrote out the receipt, and signed it, and no other Chinaman than Chew Lee was present. It was untrue that he had borrowed £3 from Lee in the afternoon of the day when he got the receipt for the £3 deposit. "Old Charlie" picked the fruit, and complained about school children picking the fruit, saying he would tell Chew Lee. Mrs Hight stated she was present in Chew Lee's shop when her husband asked Chew Lee to go up and see the orchard, to see what it was worth. She heard Chew Lee say lie would give £26 10s for the fruit, after he had seen it. She and her husband went with Chew Leo to a room behind tbe shop, where witness wrote out the agreement whereby her husband agreed to sell the fruit in one orchard for £26 10s. Lee paid £3 on account. To Mr Graham: There was not a second Chinaman in the office when the arrangement was made. When she wrote out the. agreement, she did not put in any Chinaman's name. Neither did any Chinaman put his name in while she was there. She did not write the signature on the agreement (produced). W. J. Jones, carrier, stated Chew Lee had engaged him to take some fruit from Flight's orchard, and part was taken to the shop and part to the goods-shed. Thirteen cases of quinces were consigned to Thomas and Co., Wellington. For the defence, Chew Lee stated Flight had asked him to buy the fruit, and he replied no, but he would bring a friend who would buy it. Witness took up Chock-Sing, who could not talk English, so witness spoke for him. Chock Sing agreed to pav £20 10s for the fruit. Mr and Mrsi'.ight came down afterwards to make' an agreement, and Chock Sing was there. M.rs Flight wrote the agreement, and witness put in the Chinese name, as Mrs Flight could not spell it. In the afternoon Flight called in and borrowed £3 from witness. Ho also booked goods. Some time afterwards witness asked Flight to settle up, and Flight said he would pay when he got his milk cheque. Hight said nothing about the money for the fruit. Witness brought over £10 worth of fruit from Chock Sing. Chock Sing (through an interpreter), stated he carried a basket, working on his own account. He knew Mr Hight. Chew Lee had taken him to tbe orchard and showed him round, and he saw Mr Hight, makinoan arrangement to buy the fruit. After further evidence, the Magistrate decided that Cheiv Lee hod made the purchase, and gave judgment ng- a i ns t ])j ]n Iv ;th costs. &


Feilding Star, Volume IV, Issue 1171, 29 April 1910, Page 4

paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=FS19100429.2.22&srpos=1&e=-------100--1----0chew+lee+fruit--

[nzbc]

Mrs Higlit corroborated' the evidence as to agreed purchase. Nover considered "Ulmrlny" had bought tha fruit, but no name was on tiie agreement. Cross-examined: When the arrangement was made Chew Leo was by himself iu the office. He did not say he would find a man to purchase as he did not want the fruit. Witness did not write the signature on the receipt aud which he husbaurl had stated she had written.
W. J. Jones, carrier, slated lie was
employed by Chew Lee to take tlio fruit from Hight's. Part weut to tho shop and part wns delivered at
the goods shea ami consigned to Wellington, For the defence, Oliew L OO stated Hight askod hi in to bay the f rn it but lie did not require it, However' lit) offered to get a purchaser, and Ohock Sing, whc. could not talk went to Hight's with witness, and after inspecting tho orchard Oiiock Sing agreed to buy at £2(i 103. Hight stated ho would thejolfor, and called at witness's shop on the following Friday and au agreement was signed by Mrs Hignt on Mr Eight's behalf. Witness added Obook Sing's name for Mrs Hight as she oould uot spoil it. Mrs Hight then signed and Ohook Siug paid £3, That afternoon Mi flight oallod on witness and asked for the loan of £3 to pay some accounts, which witness aid. Some tiuie after witness asked for repayment and oust of goods sop. plied, whiohjjwas promised on receipt of milk clieqae. Hight did not then say anything about counterclaim for fruit. Wifcuesa bought over £lO of fruit from Ohook Sing, who rendered aooounts which were paid by witness and receipt reoeived. Never'offered Hight to settle if he would pay £2. Through an interpreter Ohook Sing gave evidenoe which was, in the main, iu support of Oliew Lee's statements as to visiting the orchard, making the agreement, Ohew Lee lending £3, and witness rondering accounts to Ohew Lee, whioli lie paid.
I His Worship found the purchase was between Oliew Lee, and!not Oliook Sing, and Mr Higlit. Judgment was givou for plaintiff for £6 Os 4s, costs 28a, witness's expenses 10s. Manawatu Times, Volume LXV, Issue 998, 29 April 1910, Page 7