WHO BOUGHT IT ?

TWO CHINAMEN AND SOME < FEU IT. ' 1

A CHINESE PUZZLE

MAGISTRATE ASKED TO SOLVE

Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., at the Feilding Court yesterday afternoon, Chew Lee, for whom Mr Graham appeared, was sued by S. Flight, represented by Mr Haggitt, for the recovery of £26 for the purchase of fruit from plaintiff's orchard. Hight deposed that Chew Lee had agreed to go to witness's orchard and inspect the fruit. Chew Lee agreed ; to buy the fruit, and paid £3 deposit, i Chew Lee was to pay a further £10 : in cash, and witness was to take out ' the balance in stores. Witness had ■ had no further dealings wi,th any i other Chinamen, and had not bor- I rowed £3: from any Chinaman. To Mi- Graham: Chew Lee did not say lie did not want the fruit. When Lee went for the fruit, he brought '. another Chinaman with him. ' Witness's wife wrote out the receipt, and signed it, and no other Chinaman than Chew Lee was present. It was untrue that he had borrowed £3 from Lee in the afternoon of the day when he got the receipt for the £3 deposit. "Old Charlie" picked the fruit, and complained about school children picking the fruit, saying he would tell Chew Lee. Mrs Hight stated she was present in Chew Lee's shop when her husband asked Chew Lee to go up and see the orchard, to see what it was worth. She heard Chew Lee say lie would give £26 10s for the fruit, after he had seen it. She and her husband ' went with Chew Leo to a room behind tbe shop, where witness wrote out the agreement whereby her husband agreed to sell the fruit in one orchard for £26 10s. Lee paid £3 on account. To Mr Graham: There was not a second Chinaman in the office when the arrangemet was made. When she wrote out the. agreomet, she did not put in any Chinaman's name. Neither did any Chinaman put his name in while she was there. She did not write the signature on the agreement (produced). W. J. Jones, carrier, stated Chew Lee had engaged him to take some fruit from Flight's orchard, and part was taken to the shop and part to the goods-shed. Thirteen cases of quinces were consigned to Thomas and Co., Wellington. For the defence, Chew Lee stated Flight had asked him to buy the fruit, and he replied no, but he would bring a friend who would buy it. Witness took up Chock-Sing, who could not talk English, so witness spoke for him. Chock Sing agreed to pnv £20 10s for the fruit. Mr and Mrsi'.ight came down afterwards to make' an agreement, and Chock Sing was there. M.rs Flight wrote the agreement, and witness put in the Chinese name, as Mrs Flight could not spell it. In the afternoon Flight called in and borrowed £3 from witness. Ho also booked goods. Some time afterwards witness asked Flight to settle up, and Flight said he would pay when he got his milk cheque. Hight said nothing about the money for the fruit. Witness brought over £10 worth of fruit from Chock Sing. Chock Sing (through an interpreter), stated he carried a basket, working on his own account. He knew Mr Hight. Chew Lee had taken him to tbe orchard and showed him round, and he saw Mr Hight, makinoan arrangement to buy the fruit. After further evidence, the Magistrate decided that ' Cheiv Lee hod made the purchase, and gave judgment ng- a i ns t ])j ]n . Iv ;th costs. ' &