Post by nzbc on May 8, 2016 14:01:32 GMT 12
New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5751, 23 April 1880, Page 6
Sou Mi v. Ah Bing.—Claim, £9. Mr. Laishley for plaintiff; Mr. S. ife3keth for defendant. This was a re-hearing of a case tried before the Court on the 29th nit. Tha facts of the case were brief and simple, but the proceedings were very peculiar, which might have been anticipated, seeing that bo'.h pirties are Chinese, or "members of the Celestial Empire," that two of their numbers had to act as interpreters (one for each side). The witnesses were also all Chinese, as will be readily understood by the mention of their names—Ah Yin, Ah Yoo, How Sui, Ya Kune, and others unnameable. Tne first difficulty to be settled was how the witnesses were to be sworn, as some of them, it was said, did not believe in a future state. The form of oath that seemed to ba mo3t acceptable was, that two candles should be lighted on the table, then that a thingy should be placed between them, that the deponent should kill the thingy, cut his head blow out the lights. It turned out, however, that one of the interpreters said he was naturalised, was a Christian, and ready to swear on the English Bible. This Bimple fact was a solvent of the difficulty, for this person undertook to administer the oath to all the witnesses in a manner that they would consider binding on their consciences." The form in which it was done was as follows —The interpreter obtained a lucifer match, which he lighted, reciting a Chinese formula in a semi-rythmical tone. When this was done he held the match to the witness's mouth, and the witness blew it out. The facts elicited were, that the plaintiff lent the defendant £13 to set up a cousin a3 a gardener, and a sum of £4 was paid back in a week. Ah Bing is a member of a firm of Chinese, known as the Ah Kew and Company, who preferred a claim against Sou Mi for £5 103 for board and lodging. Sou Mi, however, had sometime before lent this firm £100, and was paid back partly in cash and partly in goods. Ah Bing, when asked by the plaintiff to pay the balance, said he could not if the firm would not pay. They would satisfy their claim. But the. plaintiff said he lent the money to Ah Bing without reference to the company. Ah Bing said the money was placed in his hands as a member of the firm to take care of for plaintiff; that plaintiff being indebted to the firm the amount wa3 stopped. The plaintiff said he was going to Napier, and Ah Bing telegraphed that plaintiff went there to "swindle" people. But the plaintiff came back and brought his action. During the course of the proceedings there was a necessity that the Court should have it "clearly" before it whether the "money was lent" or "left with" the defendant, and a regular tribe of Chinese literati volunteered to explain the celestial vernacular, and there arose such a chorus of nasal sounds (yong, yaug, ying, ya, he, yoo) in very unmusical key outside the constellation the lawyers were puzzled, and contributed their individual portions to the prevailing obscurity. The interpreters were absolute, arrayed in pouterbosomed shirt-fronts and chanting pigeon English. At length a lucid interval arrived, and the Court adjourned for lunch at 1 o'clock. At 2 o'clock the Court re-assembled. The case was resumed, the witnesses were called and gave their several recitals of the facts, coch one blowing out a lucifer match to begin with. His Worship arrived at the conclusion that there was a loan andnot a "bailment." The parties retired to consider the basis of settlem;nt. The following
arrangement was made Judgment for p'a'iitiiY All Kew and CJ- to sae for £5 10.-3. Execution to be stayed meantime. The cros3-case to be heard oil Monday n-xfc
paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZH18800514.2.36&cl=search&srpos=10&e=-------100--1----0james+ah+bing+james+ah+kew+--&st=1
New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5769, 14 May 1880, Page 6
Letters of naturalisation have been issued to James Ah Bing, storekeeper, Auckland. New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6369, 17 April 1882, Page 6
Sou Mi v. Ah Bing.—Claim, £9. Mr. Laishley for plaintiff; Mr. S. ife3keth for defendant. This was a re-hearing of a case tried before the Court on the 29th nit. Tha facts of the case were brief and simple, but the proceedings were very peculiar, which might have been anticipated, seeing that bo'.h pirties are Chinese, or "members of the Celestial Empire," that two of their numbers had to act as interpreters (one for each side). The witnesses were also all Chinese, as will be readily understood by the mention of their names—Ah Yin, Ah Yoo, How Sui, Ya Kune, and others unnameable. Tne first difficulty to be settled was how the witnesses were to be sworn, as some of them, it was said, did not believe in a future state. The form of oath that seemed to ba mo3t acceptable was, that two candles should be lighted on the table, then that a thingy should be placed between them, that the deponent should kill the thingy, cut his head blow out the lights. It turned out, however, that one of the interpreters said he was naturalised, was a Christian, and ready to swear on the English Bible. This Bimple fact was a solvent of the difficulty, for this person undertook to administer the oath to all the witnesses in a manner that they would consider binding on their consciences." The form in which it was done was as follows —The interpreter obtained a lucifer match, which he lighted, reciting a Chinese formula in a semi-rythmical tone. When this was done he held the match to the witness's mouth, and the witness blew it out. The facts elicited were, that the plaintiff lent the defendant £13 to set up a cousin a3 a gardener, and a sum of £4 was paid back in a week. Ah Bing is a member of a firm of Chinese, known as the Ah Kew and Company, who preferred a claim against Sou Mi for £5 103 for board and lodging. Sou Mi, however, had sometime before lent this firm £100, and was paid back partly in cash and partly in goods. Ah Bing, when asked by the plaintiff to pay the balance, said he could not if the firm would not pay. They would satisfy their claim. But the. plaintiff said he lent the money to Ah Bing without reference to the company. Ah Bing said the money was placed in his hands as a member of the firm to take care of for plaintiff; that plaintiff being indebted to the firm the amount wa3 stopped. The plaintiff said he was going to Napier, and Ah Bing telegraphed that plaintiff went there to "swindle" people. But the plaintiff came back and brought his action. During the course of the proceedings there was a necessity that the Court should have it "clearly" before it whether the "money was lent" or "left with" the defendant, and a regular tribe of Chinese literati volunteered to explain the celestial vernacular, and there arose such a chorus of nasal sounds (yong, yaug, ying, ya, he, yoo) in very unmusical key outside the constellation the lawyers were puzzled, and contributed their individual portions to the prevailing obscurity. The interpreters were absolute, arrayed in pouterbosomed shirt-fronts and chanting pigeon English. At length a lucid interval arrived, and the Court adjourned for lunch at 1 o'clock. At 2 o'clock the Court re-assembled. The case was resumed, the witnesses were called and gave their several recitals of the facts, coch one blowing out a lucifer match to begin with. His Worship arrived at the conclusion that there was a loan andnot a "bailment." The parties retired to consider the basis of settlem;nt. The following
arrangement was made Judgment for p'a'iitiiY All Kew and CJ- to sae for £5 10.-3. Execution to be stayed meantime. The cros3-case to be heard oil Monday n-xfc
paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZH18800514.2.36&cl=search&srpos=10&e=-------100--1----0james+ah+bing+james+ah+kew+--&st=1
New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5769, 14 May 1880, Page 6
Letters of naturalisation have been issued to James Ah Bing, storekeeper, Auckland. New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6369, 17 April 1882, Page 6
Attachments:
