SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2877, 15 September 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

CHINESE APPEAL CASE

EVASION OF POLL TAX

Mr. Justice Chapman delivered judgment yesterday in tlie appeal cases of Van Chit Lin and Cliou Vee Hop. The appeals were against tlio decision of Mr. J). G. A. Cooper, S.M., who fined a Chinese woman for landing in Now Zealand without complying with the regulations, and the man for aiding' the woman to do so. The appellant was a Chinese woman, admitted to bo the wife of Cliou Yeo Hop or Wong Yee Hop, a-Chinese not naturalised in New Zealand. A Chinese named Ah Young became naturalised in Now Zealand in 1894, and left for China more than four years ago, and Chou Yee Hop became possessed of All Young's letter of naturalisation. Having paid his own tax on landing ho was free to leave New Zoaland and return within four years, and had done so under his own name in 1912. On March 10,1915, he falsely represented himself as the .person described in the letters of naturalisation issued to Ah Young, obtained identification papers, and went abroad under that name, and under that name also he married the appellant iu Sydney in July 19, 1914. He and Ills wife returned to New Zealand as Mr. and Mrs. Ah Young on August 2, 1915, and on arrival at the office _of the Customs Department Chou Yeo Hop and his wife produced the letters of naturalisation of the said All Young, and also the marriage certificate, and stated that he was married to appellant. By means of the false pretence that he was Ah Young, and a naturalised Chinese, Chou Yeo Hop and his wife entered Now Zealand. The apIpellant did not comply with the section of the Immigration Restriction Act,' 1908, requiring an examination in the English'language.- Sho was not naturalised, and did not pay the tax of £100 provided for. She-did not give evidence at the hearing, or otherwise prove that she was :iot subject to the provision? of the Act. The question was whether section 42, paragraph A, did, or did not, create an offence irrespective of proof of intention to defraud. The offence of which Chou Yee Hop was convicted was that of procuring his wife to commit the oft'ence above described. This proseciition was under scetion 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1908, which renders a person who aids, assists, counsels, or procures the commission of any_ offence punisliablo on summary conviction liable to bo proceeded against for the same, and subjects him on conviction to the same forfeiture and punishment as such principal offender is by law liable to.

Both appeals were dismissed, with £5 ss. costs in each caac. At the hearing Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for the appellants, and Mr. I'. S. K. Macassey lor the Crown. • DISPUTE OVER A ROAD. Legal argument iu tho caso Castlcpoint County Council v. Richard J. Barton, was heard by Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday. Mr. 0. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Jordan, appeared for the council, and Air. M. Myers for the defendant. The claim was in connection with a. track or road called Packspur Road, from which it was alleged that defendant had removed certain culverts. Tho plaintiff council sought to recover £20 damages, and to obtain an injunction restricting the defendant from further interfering with the road. In reply to His Honour, Mr. Skerrett said that what the plaintiff council really sought was a declaratory judgment upholding tho existence of the road. After hearing argument, His Honour reserved his decision.