A CURIOUS CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 3413, 29 January 1874, Page 2

A CURIOUS CASE.

At the banco sitting of the Supreme Court yesterday, application was made to Judge i Chapman on behalf of the surviving mem* hers of a Chinese firm in Dunedin—Mdng;.. Lung, Sue Toi, and Lum Chung, for a tulo v 7/isi, calling upon Lee Ah Hing, astorekoeper at Bannockburn, but who describes himse'f as a merchant of Dunedin, to /show cause why, under the Court of Probate Ac si the following questions should not he tried .by a jury Whether Lee Ah Hing is the brother °f Lee Mow Tie, of Dunedin, lately deceased; a ? d * * ur * , r > show cause why two orders of Mr Justice Chapman, dated respectively the 22nd January, 1874, made in the matter of Lee ; Mow l ie, deceased, should nob beset aside or varied ; and further, to show cause why the granting and issuing of letters of administration to Lee Ah Hing, under the order dated 12th December, 1873, should not be withheld until after 4 the the trial of the issue aforesaid, and abide the event of the trial; and why,, in the. meantime,- all proceedT Dg * - tbe estate and effceta .of Lee,,, Mow Tie should 1 not ,be ; stayed. l The facts of the case : are" these Lee Mow TivofDunedin, died-the24thNovember, 1872- : Ah Hing applied, after the "death of. Ie ?• r^l0 ’ for letters of administration ■ his effects, making the application upon an affidavit ip which he described, himself asthe brother of deceased ; and no citation or' notice of. his application having been served upon any person, there was no opposition bo it, and the usual order directing the issue <of lletters of administration was made in his favor. After .the order wis granted, Ah .dmg applied, as administrator to the firm of »>un War n, of Dunedin, for an account of ;thc transactions of their partnership! and for delivery to him (Ab ding) of'the' share of their assets that had belonged to Lea' Mow Tie-(dfeceased), asserting that Lee Mow Tie had been a partner in the firm of dun War Jjjis application; 7 by Ah ’ Hing to the farm of Sun War Onwas thefirst intifnation j k ,Pi n ß had. obtained an brdeV grafting 1 iadmihistration to him; and aa Lee Mow Tie .(deceased) had not been a partner of theirs, .although under certain circumstances ’he : might turn out to be interested m their I estate, they forthwith Ipdged a caveat in the Supreme Court against the issue of letters of tq Ah r Hing, ; on, the ground .that he was representing himself as the ’brother of the deceased, -when, in fact, he isnot the brother at all. The Affidavits filed bn * I®? the firm.of Sun \Var On set forth the following facts as proof thAt AH King is ; not ths brother of deceased as he represented himself to be: During' the lifetime of Lee Mpw Tie, Ah, Hing vent an order for goods to the farm of Sun War t in." Upon receipt of ; this order, a consultation took.place between. | he partners of the firm of War Oh’ in which the .deceased also took part, as to , whether the"firm should execute this order bri aot. and each ask. d the other whether he knew who Ah Hing Was.' Lee Mow Tie (tfie 1 ieceased) declared that he did not know him aor anything about him. The others made a similar declaration, and the result was that they determined before sending, him. goods to take the usual course in such cases, thatis, to write to him inquiring from what village in X^. he^ d c ° me - In reply to this letter, vn Hing Wroth enclosing L2O on account of fa's order, and giving particularsof his village, xc., whereupon the firm of Sim War On heing satisfied with his statements/sent him the goons. The affidavits alleged that this village m China was a different village from that from which Leo Mow Tie came, and at s suck a distance from it that it was not posable that he and Ah fling could be brothers coming from the same place, and of the same parentage. It was further sworn that Lee Mow lie (deceased) was in the habit of receiving etters from his mether in China j that those letters showed the name of the village of Lee Mow Tie’s family to be a different' viiUge from that which Ah Hing represented himself>to come from. A member of the arm of Sun War On made further affidavit no the following effect; That he bad «,m* ployed the, deceased in Ballarat as his cook and afterwards as bis clerk ; and upm the eitabiishraeot of the firm of Sun War On in Dunedin, he sent the deceased to Dunedin to represent his share, he bimse.f being about to proceed to China • that the deceased gave him LIO to give to his (deceased's) mother in ohma, giving him particulars bfher name village and, family, so as. to enable him to hnd uer and some other relations/.and that deceased expressly told him he had no brothers. On arriving in China the deponent went to see Lee Mow Tie’s mother., and gave;her money equivalent it© the. LIO, and saw others of Lee Mow Tie’s, relations: that the ydiage where he saw. them; was not the village from which Ah Hing stated he came • and that, the mother of, Lee Mow Tie never mentioned to defendant the name of Ah Hipg, or stated that she had any other chil drefi than Lee Mow Tie, TWo other members of the firm of Sun War On in iheir affidavits swore 1 that they were present on several occasions at conversations between the deceased and A hj Hiag, in Dunedin, when they spoke to one another only upon business, and as total strangers would speak to one Another; but did not converse about home or old associacions, nor say anything that would uad to the belief Hiat there was any relationship between them / that the deceased Lee Mow T xe . “yed the place of business 'of the partnership -firm and with the partners, 7 'And told them that he , had no relatives'out'of China, and never spoke of Ah king ah his br °P^ r , or relative during the whole time 7 ha so lived with them. They also siybre ihat *h Hing, aster the death of Lee Mow Tie came;to their place of business, and asserted that he was qousiu (noo brother)'of the deceased, asked te aee the book's of the hrm. Upon the firm of Sun War On instructed their solicitor to apply, to the Judge in Chambers direct an issue to be tried before a jury ; whether Ah Hing is or is not the .‘brother of ; Lee Mow lie (deceased). In answer to those affidavits, fib Hing and several other Qhinanieii-swore affidavits, in which they stated that Ah Hing was the brother of deceased, who they alleged was-oneof a family ofi four brothers aIL -coming from, the same village that Ah Hing had stated himself to come from ; and in those affidavits they professed to'be well acquainted with that family, and gavOthe name of Lee Mow Tie’s lather, but not the I natnebf the mother, who wrote the letters: ode Toi and Lum Ohnhg, Mr> Smith pro»ceeded to say, were partnere here. ’ Lee Mow fie (deceased) came to Dunedin with Ihose two persons, when’they opened the business. Lee Mow Tie came to represent Mung Lung the partner absent on a visit to China. Ah Hing used to buy goods from the firm of Kum (voon .Lee at the same time that be was buying from the firm of Sun War On, but he ceased .to buy any,, goods from t the latter since July last, restricting his dealings since that date to Kutn Goon- Lee’s firm. Another remarkable circumstance was that during the whole of Lee Mow Tie’s lifetime in Dunedin, Ah Hing, when he came to town stopped with Kum Coon Lee, and not with h.a at the firm 0 f Sun War On ; and that fact had a strong bearing on the affidavit of*.one. of. the firm-of Kum Goon Lee. which_.he would.refer to preaently. The fact that Ah Hing came from a village distant thirty miles' from that in which the deceased s mother lived showed thatr life could not be her son. The conclusion to be drawn from the affidavits was that persons in the rank, of Lee Mow Tie and his mother were a bad (rf ad ecri#ti glebes j they could A°no^ V 6 they re&fied in.

a Nf£ V fc^-:^3^»» of basi* hun War aad.askecfct() see the 8:^ oUn i. 8 J h ? ms6lf toLde granted T^iru ® noW *PpUe4 for was