LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1959, 16 January 1914, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. CHINESE CLAIMS ON A DOCTOR. THREE YEARS , WACEB, ALLEGATIONS OF LOO SHOOK. During yesterday's civil sittings of tho Magistrate's Court, tho first civil sitting of this year, a somewhat remarkable . allegation of failure to pay wages to a Oliiueso was mads against Dr. l''rancis Wallaco Mackenzie, a Wellington cye-sptcialist. The plaintiff in the case was Loo Shook, an aged Chinese, and tile claim was for 3 £lSii as wages said to foe duo at, the. rate of £1 per week, from September, 190'J,' to March, 1913. Mr. V. E, Meredith represented tho plaintiff, and Dr. MacUcnaie conducted his own case. Tho Cass for Loo Shook. Mr. Meredith outlined' Loo Bhdok'a case. Ho stated that Dr. Mackenzie owned a farm near Kawhia. First of all ho had had a manager and a Chinaman named Loo Wai working there. Loo Wai had been under tho impression that he was to get £1 per week, but ho never got it. Dr. Mackenzio ascertained tho whereabouts of Loo Shook and offered him £1 per week to work on the farm. The only other people then on tho property, which was a rough one, were tho manager and Loo Wai. Loo Shook received no money whatever from Alackonzie. Ho had asked for it several times, but only received evasive answers. Filially ho got enough money from the manager to come to Wellington and see Dr. Mackenzio. On the occasion of-the first interview he was told to "come back and seo mo tomorrow." Noat time Dr. Mackenzie was "too busy." When Loo Shook railed tho. third timo Dr. Mackenzio was away. Tho Chinese called again, and Dr. Mackenzio then repudiated the debt and said that if plaintiff came back again he would hand him over to a policeman. Loo Shook had always boon a bio to get work before going to Kawhia, and, at the present timo he could got employment, at £1 10s.. per week. It was'unreasonable to suggest that the Uhineso would consent to bury himself on a back-blocks farm doing rough, hard work away from his associates unless ho was told that ho would .be paid for it. "I don't think tho defendant will say that ho ever paid tho plaintiff anything," continued Mr. Meredith, "but evidently ho reckoned that ho was entitled to send this man to hard, slogging work in the back-blocks and pay him nothing. J recognise that the plaintiff is a Chinaman and tho defendant a medical practitioner in Wellington, but it is hardly conceivablo that plaintiff would do this for tucker and a few sec-ond-hand clothes. Ho did bnsh-fcllin", ploughing, road-jnaking. Ho worked six days a week, for eight hours a day, and tho only holidays ■ho got wero Christmas Day and New Year's Day. Mr. Meredith then called Ah Kum, a resident of Wellington, who said that he remembered that about four years ago a Chirieso named Gee Gee went to Dr. Mackenzie to have his eyes attended to! Yt ltness accompanied Geo Gen, and Dr. Mackenzie asked whero Loo Shook was .as hp.,.wa3. willing to givo him a job upcountry .""Loo Shook saw Dr. Mackonzic and afterwards told witness that tho .doctor, had offered -.him a job at £1 nor 'week:" " . ' ••■.•■.--. .-..- v Tho 'defendant cress-examined Ah KH.m,.'.and,remark'od that,ho.was asking certain questions with tho object of showing that-Kum's evidence in chief was "a tis3iio of lies." In reply to 'come of tho questions, witness said that iu earlier years' ho had been a gold miner in.Otago. A Chinese "Tom Sayers.".. Loo Shook, the plaintiff, swore that Dr. Mackenzio, had engaged him at £1 per week' to go •to tho farm, which was at : Oparau, near Kawhia. Ho was getting £1 per week and found before ho left thero, and now had several offers of work at £1 10s. per week. Dr. Mackenzie: You wero known as Tom Savers in the old days? Loo Shook: TomSaycrs—yes. You wero a' fightiiig man —"No." You worked for my father?—" Yes, for about ten years " When you camo to me.yoj said that you had been on tho spree, and could not get work locally?—" No." !• : Didn't you say that you were too old to work? —"No." Loo Wai deposed that ho was working on tho Kawhia farm for 18 months before Loo Shook went there. 'Dr. Mackenzie took him to tho farm, and on the way up in the train offered him £1 per week. On one occasion when he asked-defendant for money ho got £1, and on another occasion ho got £2. Dr. Mackenzie said that he would knock £100 off his account for attending to witness's, eves.

Chinese Evidence Impugned. Tho cnse for tlio plaintiff was then closed. In the course of tome remarks addressed to tho Court, Dr. Mackenzie said that the Chinese had collaborated against him, although liis treatment of them was roally an act of charity. Loo Wai went to him, old and blind, he operated on him, cured him, and sent him to tho farm. He had only charged Loo Wai £1 If., consultation fee. Ho wa3 in. -an awkward position; he was cornered throriith. the. collaboration of the Chinese. He (defendant) snjrcostod that ■ tho case should be adjourned so that tho evidence'of his manager, who is at Kawhin, could■ he taken. Mr. Meredith said that tho manager's evidence could bo taken in tho Kawhia district. Defendant said lie woukl need to so to KswhSa ixbnnf ;'.. Mr, Meredith: AVhy not get a solicitor?' Dr. Mackenzie: I can't, afford to.- I am as pcor ns anything. I ran hardly get along. Mr. Meredith: Didn't yoii go surety for one of ilip strike loaders in the sum of £500? Rather a largo sum to plead poverty o: , .! Tho ease v. - as tli"ii adjourned till thin nwrnng. wiion dofendant's ftTkknco will lie taken. Mr. Meredith mentioned that- Loo Woi was proceeding in the Supreme Court mi n claim for £233 against Mackenzie.

UNDEFENDED CASES. lii tho following case? judgment was entered for the plaintiff by default:— Grorffi Gilmour V. H. Brown, £9 IPs. 6:1., costs £1 ss. Gd.; R. Kilpntriek v. Arthur John Kelly, £8 ss. Pil., costs £1 3s. Cd.; Meek and Von Haast v. George S. Neish, £1 4s. 6(1.. costs 75.; Colonial Carrying Co. v. L. Simmonds, CM Os. CM., costs 145.; Samuel Brown, Ltd., v. John O'Brien, 1G3., costs Gs.; AVnllinstton (ins Company v. Wai tor K. Filton," £2 3s. Id., costs 155.; Office Appliance Company v. Lomax and Co., £2 10s., costs 10s.: C. and A. Odlin, Ltd., v. Arthur Patcliott, £20 lfis., posts £2 145.; T. Hitchcox v. llerliert Henry Jones, £4 155., costs Ms.; Commercial Aj;cncy, Ltd., v. James Alexander. £ : 2 ISs. 10d.. costs 10s.; E.imo v. Woodroofo Jiros.. Us., costs £2 25.; I'iiscoe. rtiul Co., Ltd.. v. j>l. M'Grntli, £0 14s. Bd., costs £1 10s. Gd.: D.1.G., Ltd.. v. 11. S. Kinji. £17 3s. Gd.. costs £1 10s. 6d.;. Wellington Cias Co. v. Michael Denncth, £2 35.. costs 10s.; Brown and Dnrcan. Ltd., v. James Clarki! and Co., £71 75., costs £4 os. fid.; Isabella Dnnev v. Georgo Tavlor, £2 16s.,'costs iOs.; Sargood," Son,"and

Ewen, Ltd., v. E. Dyer, £4 55. : :9(1f,. costs 135.; K. J. Forbes and 'fe'oii/'.Jitd.f v._ Walter J. Gilibs, £4 17s. 'Ckl.,;"costs--10s.; Laory and Co., Ltd., iv: ,, .Johir -Murphy, £9 18s., costs 75.; J. Harrington v. Margaret Curtis, U co3ts 10s.; Mock and Von Haastwv.l Amy S. Barraolough, £6 7s. 2d., costs' lla.; Hutt County Council v. Charles Wyeth, 13s. Gd., costs £1 10s. 6(1.; O'Kogan and Dix v. J. Kilmister, ; £4 lCs. 10d., costs 125.; Kirkcaldio: and Stains v. H. Mansford, £1 3s. 5d., costs os.; same v. Harry Dedson, £11 10s.?' costs £1 los. Gd.; Novelties,. Ltd..-'-v , .* Bromley Hill £1, costs 55.; J.v-Bi" ; . MacEwan ami Co. v. Rika Kerema, : £9o 13s. 7d., costs £4 15?.; Albert Collyer.; v. Georgina Love, £7 13s. 6d... costs' £1 3s. Gd.; Charles Begs and Go.'," Ltd.', v. Honare Chase, £18 os. 9d., and possession of piano, and costs £5 Ms.; Van Staveron Bros. v. William Hyde,' £11 7s;, costa 155.; T. W'. Stephen's v. Gordon W. Beynolds, £5, costs £1 Os. Cd.';. F. D. Ferguson v. Miss B. Cross. £1, costs 65.; Hirst and Co., Ltd., v. D. Foster, Gd., costs 10s.; J. B. Hulbort v. Charles Greyland, £1 55., costs us.; Mandel and Carr v. W. Hyde, £37 15s" 10d., costs £2 Us.; W. C. Smith v. Frank Winnie, £3 4s. 6d., costs 10s.:'. H. F. MacNeill and Cα. v. Henry Stovenoaux, £15 125., costs £1 lls. Gd.; C. Pratt and Co. v. Charles Chilcott, £25 10s. od., :costs £2 145.; Maggie-, Stevenson v. Emil V. Foucard, £9 105.,' costs £3 10a. Gd. '"V'V'-.V, JUDGMENT DEBTORS. '"t'v-T; A. G. Wilfen was ordered- to pay Veitch and Allan the sum of £6 ISs. by January 29. R. Potts to pay Harry CSotlieb £3 Bs. by January 23. Morris. Ha-slor to pay Charles Russell £15 os. 7d. by January 29. George. Fernandos to pay Henry Inniss, jtin., £9 4s. 7d.. by January 20. Alexander Lister to l>ay C. E. Koulston £1 10s. by January 29. G. Shamey to pay J. Keir £1173: 9d. by January 29. :',>-;:;v THE POLICE SIDE. fcft:: THEFT OF A DUCK AND A FOWL. ' Fritz Kistoivsky, who wns «n ployed in the kitchen of the Empire Hotel, was charged with tho theft of a duck anrl a- fowl. Ho admitted tho theft, and was fined £1. It was stated tliat at one timedefendant wns a sea captain, but that he had to look for work on land through his sight failing. . ■- :■ .":■;. OPIUM SMOKING CHARGE. .. Ah Jo'o and Charlie Youns; Sing wc.ro charged with having smoked opium and, having had opium in a- form suitable for smoking in their possession. . They were remanded till January 19, and tho bail was fixed as a deposit of £50. OTHER CASES. ;>' ■ Kenneth Minahan was convicted of the theft of a strag belonging to Thomas Knudson, and was ordered to make restitution! ■gliomas M'Dovett was charged with being a rogue anrl a vagabond in that ho had been found sleeping in a stable on Wednesday night. The defendant said that he know the owner of ■ the premises, and had gone to the- stable to sleep off tho effects of liquor. Tho caso was dismissed. For insobriety, John Shannon and John Hvdo wore each fined 10s. Margaret M'Hugh, charged with having loitered for undesirable purposes, was remanded till January 23.