Young Chinese Defrauded of £92

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 661, 13 May 1929, Page 11

Young Chinese Defrauded of £92

COUNTRYMAN ON TRIAL ALLEGED TRUST BETRAYED j Trusted by his countrymen in j Auckland, and also the officers of the Customs Department, Albert Hong Duk, a Chinese, aged 29, stood trial at the Supreme Court today on five charges of false pretences and two of theft. Hong Duk was well known at the Auckland Police Court, where he frequently acted as an interpreter. The five false pretence charges related to transactions with a young Chinese named Sing Soo Ying. It was alleged that sums amounting to £92 12s 6d were obtained by the false representations. In the two theft charges a sum of £33 2s 4d was involved. Mr. V. N. Hubble appeared for the Crown, and Mr. F. W. Schramm represented accused. Mr. Hubble, in outlining the case for the prosecution, said that Sing Soo Ying came to New Zealand early in 1926, accused acting as his agent for negotiations with the Customs Department. At the end of the six months period for which an immigration permit was issued, accused asked Ying for £lO to enable the permit to be renewed. The sum was paid over and accused made similar demands at the end of each six months until he had obtained £25. In March, 1928, accused told Ying that he could obtain a permit for four years if £l2O were paid over. Ying paid over £SO on account immediately. This amount was paid by cheque. YING SENT TO GAOL “On February 28 of this year,” said Mr. Hubble, “the police, who had been looking for Ying for overstaying his permit, arrested him at Newmarket. Ying, who had been counselled to silence by accused, was fined £25, and, not being able to raise this money, was sent to prison for five weeks. “An extraordinary feature of the case,” he continued, “is that Hong Duk was trusted not only by Ying, but also by the Customs Department. The officers of the department, having difficulty in tracing Chinese who had overstayed leave, had to make use of Chinese residents in Auckland. Accused had often served in this capacity, and also as an interpreter.” Ying gave evidence along the line indicated in the prosecutor’s address, and was then subjected to crossexamination by Mr. Schramm, Mr. Schramm: You belong to the Fong family?—Yes. Has there been a meeting of the Fongs to decide what action should be taken against Hong Duk?—No. Wasn’t there a meeting in Grey Avenue last night?—No. (Proceeding.)