LAW REPORTS. SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2158, 26 May 1914, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT.

WMM MAN SMI) RY A CHINESE / latter COUNTERCLAIMS. WE JURY FIND FOR. BOTH SIOIS An action |iresentm« w>hip;i.iiinstiftl fcatiws. WAS hoard at _U«e Snymms Court hutoro His ilvii.njvi:- -Ml. J.mHw Hosting -rind « jui'.v of !'«»>• 'IV plaintiff wm Loo W.vo, «» Chinese, nfwcsrtitod hv Mr. V. if. f.. iViOiodith- Tho defendant in tht> action i Ivih Dr. tf. ValUtco Mitckmie, f.vo awl [ oar suociaHs-l, ami was r< pviMCiUod hy Mr. C. !!• Trwidw.-il, Tho claim was for j £243, for to he awl ! t!was ;i covmtweiaim for £130 h' !i ' ! professimifti sorvioos rendered. ■ j la oittlininy pkintilliVj «is« 'Mr. Morei ditlj directed the jury's attention to tho I fact rtifit one of the parties wns art j titwato Chinese, v.'Uite tli© fltlvor was a I highly educated Englishman. " lif facts j ,m svfccli plabliif roM mw Ilia' in'-.Ylat-knuie had employed. hi_:'.i % nearly (iv.j visvrs a«n, to work ail his tft.riu at Kawiiia, viOii i' PliiiiuifT fed first visited (l"fi-nd;i!ii- to J.iavo'his eyes fittoJMlod to. D'' Maclwusw removed a c»bimet, and charge# £1 Is., »';t at m tinu- vnt'iiliijiicd any further ntargo. Me hud asked j»kiintiff if he would work ! at tli® funs!, for £1 ]wr wwL nnd, to this phv'u.tfff lwd consented. the OhmMe mwlo frwjttoni applications for payment. of wages, and then came to Wellington. '"Ho did not mind his wages acettmiiktmg," said Mi". Meredith, 'ior; it is tiie ilrcnvn- of (jxt-ry CtoilwmiUi to return t« China in tri* eld ago, and lie wanted to draw sufficient money to enable hiro to return to China." \Viion. he cfuno to Wellington lie saw Dr. Mackenzie, and filially a. statement was read oub to Win hy which Dr. Slacketwit} agreed to pay ;C2f)o for htft w®(s to take «lf £100 for services in Efrmiectiiiii with tho operation on tho pvr. ' That was the fust indication which tho Chinas# received of any fui'the-r pay isiwit far I'h:> ojV-n.'tkm., nod he protested'. A stn.Ur-Hioiit: iva.s then drawn lip, and pinintilf signed it, da lot kmnv what that statement was," said Mr. Meredith, "hi it. I nin prepared to iiiid that Dr. Msu'lsoiK'.ks has got a dfcnrorree ■from tko Chinaman. TMamtMF doc® not luidcrstaiwj 'Ettglish, awl was at tit;? mercy of Dr, Jfackpiww. . . • It

that K-ettlaßijiit was an honest, opo matter, Dr. Blackoiiy.it>, knowing tha lie was dealing with bi xiiieflwate Chinaman, and' kmwiiti?; that tbo Chii eso Consul was interested in the nia ter, it would bavo been the right an proper thing to have got- the Chitins Consul k> see that, it was right. Tl' Cbinainaii did iittt understanO was a settlemsHit, and so Was takin tbo arfiou tor wages."

Th 9 Engasement of Uv Wye. Loo Wye, tl» plaiivtiff, gave evidence tlwowjh a« iuterpfetor. He tleaeribcd ■iiiii:Hc'd transneiiotis with Dr. JlackenMe oil Hires indicated by counsel* and added that he bad woriied on the fans at EawJ'tia for km: yearn swd ten fswiiWis, and had then com© tr> WoflingtoM to see Dr. JlackeiiKie. After several i'ntervwws- tiio doe'tov aprecd to ftiake o'wit a statement. Ho did so, and read it to pkiiiJiiiV. In terras pfrit plaintiff was 1 to kftt £233 for wage'S- ' ! sfr.'-Me4-fcd>tb: What did ho say? ■Witness: Ho saitt tlmt it was- a- lot; of njbnoy.' ~ ■ Did-ho sav aiiytliing else P—"Ho saiu 'that he « : otdd charge £100 for curing my oyes." , Proceeding plaintiff said that life had pretested against thfi eJra-rge of 16100. Ml tltrtt ho bad receksd from Dr. Slaekenxie was i' 3 Jos-. Be Jiad nat s%au.d a statafnont, as, indicated, by counsel: To Mr. Tv&adwdl: He bad been vphig to Dr, Mackejiao for about live moiit'tiSi for treatment. Two operations were performed, for separate cataracts, on both eye.s. Wlieft ho went to work tm t-ho farni no mention was made as to bow long he was to stay. _ Every year defendant supplied him with o.tm «!>w suit of efethes and toba-ceo was also $up.plwd. 'fiiis had been agrreftd to priflr t« [/litintilt cotaine-iwing work. Ho did all kinds of Work,

About a Garttem Mr, Treadwell: As a, matte of fact, did Hot Dr. Maekj-iizro promise to fisid plaintiff a piece of lajid, for ft garden? . Witness: Jf^Did .not. bis worts principally Consist of breaking in the garden and growing vegetables f—-"iSfa. I did uhate/?e.i- the ■manager told flic" What did he do with ail the vi-geta.bles ho grew?—-"They wore ail for the ujanager's use," Did Sir. Cray sell vegetables forhiiiif —"Ko; thera was onlv a sinall garden tfone." Was not pla'Aitiff ill for about five iiio'iit-hs?— ''Kb; I was only ill for oii.o; week." Did not the manager get the doctor. from Kawhin? —"Yes," And Dr, Mactaisno thought that tlio manager paid." Mr. Trertdwell prodlieod a sigited re« cei(st (to which plaintiff admitted, tbo s.teiiatiire) reading As follows 2f, i 913. Received tlris suit) .of &3, being balniice due from Dr. Mackenzie," Pfaititiff said that lie did not understand that it was a receipt w-boii 1» signed it. There wag no stamp an it then. His Houoirr: It sloes hot need a stamp if it. was for wages. Plaintiff stated that be bad forgotten, the receipt «*b«n b<? told Mr. Meredith that be tod not signed a statojnetjt. "A Uttio Syndicate." Mr. Treadwe;!): Did not yw.t and Lor. Suk i'ora a little syudfevte'to prosecute, this and aiiother action .against- the ' doctor?—"Xt>." His Honour: Does bo nndw'stand ; wlva-t "syndteate" iww.as? Mr. IVetulwsH: Tiio Chinv-se. k.now <]uite- well what a syndicate is, (Laiftslilw.) Mr. Tvs-adwell [to piaitttift 1 ): If you get anything from tins action, who is gems; to split it «p?' ' 'flie iiitoi-'pratoi': "All for Jiimst-lf." Wali Tung,-the .laundry-man, is .not goiiijd; io get anything? ""' Tbo iiitorprrtcf: No; be brought tbo action hiniself, and it is all for hinj'sfilf. Christopher (fray, at one tiftve manager of Dr. jrai-kenxio's fariJi, said that ts-kintiff was working on thc'prt) l perty white witness was maiwgcr. He looked after tbo garden, and did general work'. He Hover sold any rag«tables, The farm was partly improved, (uttl the only periiirtrieiit labour, in additfcii to that of witness, was that of tbo ptftintiffi aftd another C-fiiuoso. On several oeca- - sious plaintiff bad asked for wwgf?- Ho had askvd witness to write in defendant, gud witness bad doftß so on two <wirasians. No money came through in return. To His Ho-tion;•: Ho could not lrovo <jot on with the work wit lion b the pernianf«it liliour of the two Chinese.To iff. Trc-iuhwll: Witness bad lxien employed by defendant for a year and ten nil!nibs*. lMniiHtlf was there when bo tool; ii|! i:.is duties. Slioci-ly al'tor be \yent-«n the farm Dr. MaH;eiiKiV bad toll! him that the other Chinese was only a visitor. Nothing was said about piaiulifl'. In 1900 wii'.H'-s-s sold snnie vea-ot-tibk?s, grown by plaintiff, ami g-ava plaintiff half" the proeceds. Witness did not know that plaintiff bad the right to - sell the vegetables, but, as manager ".of the farm", ho asstiwed that lie bad.

.Most, of plaintiff's timo was put in in Iho .garden. OUkt settlers got ve>;e----taiili-s fnim phuiililf, lint witness did not know what was paid for them, ..;:,.: !'A Most impossible Story." ■VAddii'sstng llip jury prior to calling; eviiipuep for tlii' defence', Mr. Treadwpll said tliiit tlipy had listened to one of the- most iroprohahlo stories ever told, 'flu- dli| Chinese. *l) years of age, Vrent to .Dr. ■ Maolieiis'.ie iiisd was treatfd for calai-Ki't mi both eyes. The- treatment whs free, uihl extended over a period <if five months. Then, out <*f the goodnes* of his heart, del'Mtdant sent plain- '. tilt up to tii« farm io roetrjtovutc. No : mention vims made of vragt-s, tint plaintill' was (livou ii piece (if laud which lie whs lo tinn into ii garden for his own henelit. Up was i" get nothing in the shape of 'l'h<? curious tiling; was lliat lmtli the Cliiiirep Wt at the sau.H» fii)ii% find camp to Wellington, where they saw the Chinese Consul. A pwvimis selioit against ike dnetor had town brought b.v the other Chinese, am! it had tailed.' -'Puimtilf in the present ease had mitcle. frequent deftajiifa iw small sums from the defendant, who, at last, took a receipt eteariug 'him from further liability.

'flip 'tcchnteal itofenett ta.kon was that professional sen-iees to tlw value of £13(1 had been rendered. JMundnni, did wit want tto flat) from the. Chimwe, hut if the jury found .that plaintiff was oititlod to 'any small sum for his sei'vietfs, that £150 should he takoa 'nto coiK-idwiitiWi

Dr. Maqkefizie's Evidence* Dr. Mae-kenfcie detailed tbo profes-* s-ionnt services rendered to Jilsintiff. There were live QptSratidils, and t;he; trcßtment lasted sojii.o months. Thesettle fcc- for sud» services would he £150 35., but the oaly charge mad© was £1 Is. ■consirttaiion fee P'laiMilt was pruetiwHly blind prior to the treatment. Ho bad wanted to jpo .and work lor do feuclitnt at Bona Boy. This was not possible, iMit defendant told pki-ntiif that ho could go to the farm at- Kiiwhift, mid could toko. Thnj., another Wdlie.se. who almost blind, with him. Notliijijr was said a-boit-tj wages, : but it gradually grow iiito tiro custom to giv'o "ti» old boys'*! atotl-ib.ig and totWMK). it bad been arranged tliat: pia-intifJ was to have a piwo of land,

ami mako a. garden, far hiiftself, Tlw first that ti.ef»ndant knew about ptetotijf baring loft' the tatm was ,tttai te turi'ied nfl in Wellington, Tbo fe' m was tlw property of defendant's sen. Tiu> two Ohteo made si claim for wages, after they had: visited tbo QMnese Consul, l&taldaiit had intended Sk'otring after "the (ski Dots," }m% wbew i lis found thai ttey w6i? « playinj;- triefes |oii Jihti he stopped, Charity to Three Ohifiesq* Mr. Meredith: How did '.Loo Suk_ get 'on votir i'armF—'lio was suffering from delirium tremens whett he ciWw to mje." How did 'he get on the ■ farm ?—"Ho wag iiii oitl son-ant af W fat-kea-'s, so t sent him up." Yoli SQiit throo Chines* there out of ctrarftv ?—'' Yes," Do yoi'i know of any pontrasient hands paid «a the property) opart fi'oi'n, the Chinese ?*-"}io." Further Evidcndo for tlw Defence.

ftr. FiWiett, Public Trustee, gave evidence that lie had visited the farm: since the Wnew left. The gardens were not kept tip now. Charles .■D.eiib.y, motor inoclmnis, said that lit Itiiß Ui was undergoing treatment by Dr. Si.aeHefirie, He iiict plain-1 tiff in th« swwswjv a\id plaintiff, i.Jij broken ISitdisli, told ..witness that l)r. . Maekenafc hadcMed htni of blindness, ■ i>.r«t tSiat ho was going to worJi lor the diiotor foJ.'iiotlringi. •.•••' ... ThoftutS Cheatham, inanagw ot <le-, fijnclant'6 farm in 1908, said that lie 4td ■ not think the tfiii-den made h.y plaintiff '■had ailed to the value of tlib.fem.A ai.ty war. Plaintiff never mentioned that lio was to ftrt £1 per week, To Mr: Meredith: At that ttroo the wages of a roallv gcod tarn band towuj bo about 3os..pW week. Plaintiff was ittdttstriotts. •jMoi'e- *iffli:roiii,g rtp, His Honour pointed out; in regard to the c,ouiit«rolaint, that'there- was fto express «ontvact. Did the eiMiwistttiiees support an implied: ewtawfc to pay the jm\, at did they not Mgativs any inrphcd contract? * Mv. Twadwcll m<] that there was no d»sifo to 'recover the sum from the ■C%iiMftian. tat tltoy aid tlwt- tttea a'-otoi, such tts the present, was brought' against them, they were en* ti'tfed to bring tiro cmmte-clafem. - •

Juty's Fittdins and Stay at PfOßeeaings. After ft rcfeeuiciit «'f i:tf art hour ita Jwv returned: with a verdict e»iitiiiiW pJaiutlf to tho sum of £1 per f'o *M he * vilS Qn thp ',* •"' 'Wife foil amount .of t-1.i.0 wii&tof-daiJß was also altered ptaMiffi in %. eounta--daiiis. Jiuktiwnt was aonorainrt,v c»terotl for m® f« flhiiptitt: wA coste as tioi- scale, and juilgwcttt. Mr £M.» for plaintiff, In the conntor-ctam, With ■costs, as per scatc. • , ■JSfcay ol'' prweseftings <»' tlie jwtgineitt for" fourteen ctos was aMawed.