CHINESE AT LAW.

■■ ■ 9 • •' — MONEY FOR A WIDOW. FIRM OF MERCHANTS SUED. THE PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS. Finality was reached this morning in the Supreme Court action in which John Wm. Walsh (Mr. Anderson), agent, of Hamilton, proceeded against Walt Lee i.Mr. Dickson), Chinese merchants, of Auckland, for the recovery of the sum of £44.'J 11/5, being the balance of money left by a decease.l Chinese, Won,' How ! Cliee, for transmission by Walsh to W ong How's widow and son in China, i Mr. Monro represented Wong J'.ak Sheinig, who, the defendants allege.!, was tne nearest oi kin to the widow in New Zealond. Defendants denied liability, and contended that the money had been handed to Wong J'ak Sheim., who was to send it to China. Mr. Justice .Stringer was on the bench. The case was adjourned from Friday after- , noon. When proceedings opened this morn- I ing, Mr. Dickson stated that lie had j been instructed to apply for an adjournment. He had been instructed that the Chinese Masonic Society met yesterday, with a view to discussing matters, so that the case might be settled out , of Court. j Mr. Anderson said he would have to ' oppose the application. There had been ample opportunity of giving notice, hut : counsel had only heard of this develop-1 ment this morning. ; Mr. Dickson said he would like to call i some fresh evidence. j Hf. Honor said he could not allow i further evidence to be called. The case j had been adjourned for the purpose of hearing a witness who could not attend j on Friday. It would be highly improper to allow fresh evidence —such a prat- I tice might easily lead to fills, evidence I being given. j Money Held in Trust. I Kuk Yen, a witness, who was too ill I to attend on Friday, was then called. I He stated in evidence that lie was | a p -fc-'ci' with Dang Yen, and carried on as Wall Lee. A meeting of the Chinese Masonic Society was held i in Auckland in October., 11)20, but wit-1 ness did not arrive till it was finished,! at about four o'clock in the afternoon. ! Wong link Shcung called him to the I meeting. Hak Siieung asked him to ! receive a cieijue. Witness did not 1 receive any instructions as to what to , do with the As lis received it 1 from Bak Sheung, he was to pay it j back to him. Witness did no_t know I the address of the. widow in China. A ] statement produced showed the way in , which the money had been disbursed. Witness had paid tlie money back to WOlls Dak Sheung. | "One Hundred Oaths." j Uttering a great string of Chinese I ejaculations, the witness declared, with '■ linger pointing ceiling wards, that he I would take one hundred oaths that he had paid it back to Wong Bak Sheung. Mr. Dick-son: That's all right. You are only required 10 take one oath in this Court. "When Wong Bak Sheung got the money, he told mc he was going to send it to the widow in China," said witness. Mr. Anderson: Is it not a fact that a brother of the widow in China called on I you last year, and asked for an account j of the money.—No, a person came and! asked mc if I had paid the money back j to Wong Bak Slicing, and I said yes. Had Acted as Bankers. Mr. Anderson stated that it was acknowledged that the widow in China hud received £190. Mr. Dickson submitted that Wall Lee had acted purely as bankers. He submitted, further, that everything in writing had been in favour of delendaut. Mr. Justice Stringer said he did not | require to hear Mr. Anderson. His | Honor was of opinion that tho defence I had not been established. In this case, l,is Honor did not agree with Mr. Dickson that the onus of proof was on plain- 1 till—he thought the onus was on the | defendant. Walsh had handed over to an agent a sum of money to dispose of in a certain way. The evidence waß quite clear. Walsh had acted on the authority of deceased. Walsh had, with deceased's partner, realised all the assets of the estate of deceased. There was some dispute as to the shares in the partnership, and it was decided to refer the question to the Chinese Masonic Society for determination. It j was eventually decided that the partner, Wong Wai, was entitled to £632,1 and the balance was due to the widow j in China. Thereupon, Walsh handed over a cheque for £102.5 10/10 to Wah Lee (according to Walsh's story), to be disbursed according to the decision of' the Chinese Masonic Society. It had 1 been clearly shown that Wall Lee was to take an active part in the disbursement of the money, in accordance with the society's decision. After paying the partner's share, he was to pay the rest I to the widow, yet he now set up the ' defence that he was going to pay the money to Wong Bak Sheung. His j Honor did not think the evidence confirmed that. The widow admitted only I £lf>o, and the balance of £443 was due to her- Wall Lee must be held respon- j sible for it. Wah Lee alleged that he > had two claims against the estate, for I AT,9 10/ and £91 4/8. Mr. Anderson | had undertaken that Walsh would retain the money, so that defendant would have an opportunity of provin" against the estate. His Honor would not accept a letter, which Bak Sheun~ alleged was from the widow in China.!' allegedly acknowledging sums other I' than the £_W). His Honor did not ; believe Bak Sheung. Judgment was given for plaintiff, for ' the full amount claimed, £443 11/5 with interest at 0 per cent as from October 11. 1920, plus costs. His Honor granted leave to appeal for variation on the score of interest.