"SING ON TIE."

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1710, 29 March 1913, Page 5

"SING ON TIE."

CHINESE EVADE THE ACT.t

If. a Chinaman registers "Sing On Tie" as. the name of the occupier of a shop, what, are the names of the three ners who;occupy the shop? One is/Young Hon, another. Xountj. I'at, and whatever the name of the third it is not Sing On. Tid. So it ,was proved in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, - and Mr. Hiddell, S.H., stated that he thought that'snch a, state of affairs 'constituted an evasion Of the Act. . ■ ' ■'■ ■' ,■■'.■ . ■ , • K The matter arose/through "Sitig OiiTie. • being,'proceeded against, for employing : an assistant after 9 o'clock at night.. It transpired thkt the shop 'Was rnri by three Chinese, none of whom tfere named Sing On' Tie, . ' ! ■■ ' . ■ ' His Worship pointed out that onty one j>(.rson Could register the shop, and that none, other than that person could be on the premises 'after .9 t o'clock. "Defendant," he continued, "is one of three persons; The object' of the Act is particularly, cleiir.' It is to obtain one particular individual, as occupier. ; If a number of Chinese go ink partnership end register their shop under ;a.'name,which' does, not belong to any one of them, that is, in my opinion,an evasion.' of the Act. If Chinamen are so . similar that/yon .are unable to recognise them, then'a photograph of the person who registers tlfe shop must be attached." . ■ His Worship's reference to tho .difficulty' Netf Zealanders may experience in distinguishing one Chinaman from another was, no doubt,, inspired by tho fact that Sir. D. Carihody,,tlie Labour Department officer'who appeared in the case, had been unable to swear'' positively .that China- , men present in Court were the onts he had seen'at the shop. . The Chinese, through, their , solicitor, .Mir."P. W.;,JaokS(rtii.-:stated>thiit .the one who was said to-have been worked after 0 o'clock had not been on duty; He had gone off .duty, :but' had .filled .in: time watching tho shop in case there were any shop-lifters about. •' It :.wns alleged" that the man had actutllly eetved a customer, but'respecting' the eicuse that he had merely amused hiiriself by keeping a casual .watch, 1 Mr. Eiddell said that the man's mere !' presence 'in tlie shop was assistance, becausD lie relieved his partner of, the duty of watching for thieves. If the-"occu-pier" were .engaged in watching the . place lie would not be so free to carry oil his' "Sing 1 On Tio" tvas fined .£2/ with costs 7s. ■ ■ ■ ■" ■;■■■■