CHARGES AGAINST CHINAMEN.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11487, 21 January 1903, Page 4

CHARGES AGAINST CHINAMEN.

UNCUSTOMED OPIUM

A FINE OF £100.

The caee against Ah Yee and Lim Chun, olsarged with breaches of tl*e Customs Laws Consolidation Act, which-hoe several times been adjourned for various reasons, was heard before Mr R. ]Je«thain, SM., f/eeterday. The charges .against the accused were that, on or about fhe 12th December, 1902, at Cbristchurch, they imported opium suitable for smoking, without having a permit issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The}' wei« also alleged, on the 12tb. December, to have knowingly kept and concealed prohibited and uncu«tomed opium, suitable for smoking. Mr Creesweil appeared for the Commissioner, and Mr Hoban for the accused. Lim Chun, who was sworn with a match,

gave evidence, Mr Wong Tape acting as interpreter. Witness stated that be was arrested at Springfield, and eorne opium was found on his premises. Neither of the accused told the constable that they had bought the opium, from a white man in Christchurch. They bought it from a Chinaman in Wellington named Wong Sing, who left the colony eight or nine months ago. and was unable to dispose of it. Witness paid £2 5s a tin for 35 tins of it, and smoked several of them. He bought them for his own use, and had not sold any of them. Witness had sold his former business in Wellington, and was now looking for work. He had not intended to sell the opium on the West Coast. He would usually consume a tin in about; three weeks- The opium was not concealed in pillow-cases, but was in a flour bag. Hβ wished to smoke it on his dvay to the coast, borrowing a friend's pipe when he could, and swallowing the drug at other times. Ah Yee stated that he joined Lim Chun at Wellington, and went with him to Springfield, on their way to Greymouth, where witness had been a miner. His only baggage was a stick and an umbreha. At Springfield Lim Chun asked him to cam- one of ths bags of opium. Witness knew nothing about the opium, and never smoked the drug. . Mr Hobun stated that, if his Worship held that the men had to prove that duty had been paid on the opium, he would hse to point out that they had stated they had bought it from someone else. Mr Beetham stated that there wae a conflict of evidence on the part of the accused as to where it had been bought. Mr Hoban urged that the accused might > easily 'misunderstand the questions put to thtm, and that a certain amount of allowance should be made when the evidence had to be interpreted. Mr Cresswell asked that the charge should be limited to that of having uncustomed goods in their possession, and this was agreed to- , . , Mr Beetham said it was quite clear that the men had told lie after lie in the matter, a.nd he was quite satisfied about the case. He decided to inflict the penalty of £100 upon Lim Chun, as the responsible person. The other accused was discharged. Mr Hoban gave notice of appeal. Costs were allowed as follows: —Interpreter's fee, £25 12e 6d; solicitor's fee, £6 6s; Court fees, 7s. The opium was ordered to be forfeited. Practically, therefore, Mr noban pointed out, the accused was fined £200.