Chinese Come to N.Z. “on Holiday”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 350, 10 May 1928, Page 9

Chinese Come to N.Z. “on Holiday”

SOLEMN FARCE. SAYS JUDGE FRAUD CHARGES DENIED An Oriental atmosphere pervaded the Supreme Court this morning when a middle-aged Chinese appeared for trial on charges of defrauding three of his countrymen of sums totalling £66. by falsely representing that he could secure extensions of their permits to stay in the Dominion. Mr. Justice McGregor was on flic Bench. Mr. Hubble appeared for the Crown, and Mr. S. Tong represented the accused. The services of an interpreter were required, and the oath was administered by the witnesses blowing out a lighted match. The charge, said Mr. Hubble, covered periods from April, 1926. to Scptember last. The Chinese who suffered through the transactions were Tam Yip. Lee Lun. and Chun Loi. These men were in Auckland in 1925. and there was a procedure which, if followed. Chinese could obtain a permit to remain in the country for six months. The Customs Department did occasionally use its discretion and grant extensions It was alleged that on April 14. 1926. accused obtained £2»* from See On in payment for the extension of the permits of his employeees, Tam Yip and Lee Lun. Frauds would be alleged in other cases. Considerable evidence regarding the various transactions was given by the Chinese concerned. While reading one of the documents produced by the Customs Department, his Honour remarked that it stated that the purpose of the yourn. man coming to the Dominion was to have a holiday. “Is this the oi dinary form need T ” asked his Honour. Witness; Yes, sir. llis Honour: So they all come hejs for a holiday? Persons apply for them to come here and the usual explanation is that they want a holiday. It seems to me to be rather a solemn farce. When interviewed by Detective Nalder. ttye accused had denied having received any money from the men mentioned. Opening the defence. Mr. Tong, after receiving his Honour’s decision that there was a case to go to the jury, stated that two questions were involved. One was whether he intended to defraud, or whether he received the moneys. He would endeavour to show that the defence was quite simple. The accused was engaged to try and arrange for extension of permits, and that he received payment, quite properly, for his work. The case is proceeding.