CHINESE POLL TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 199, 22 August 1900, Page 4

CHINESE POLL TAX.

A PECULIAR CASE

At the Police Court this morning Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M., gave judgment in the case of Gin Ah You, a Chinaman charged with unlawfully entering New Zealand without paying, or having paid for him, the sum of £100, being the poll-tax fixed by the Chinese Immigration Act, 1881, and amending Acts. The case was heard yesterday afternoon, the Hon. J. A. Tole (Crown Prosecutor) appearing for the prosecution, and Mr J v R. Reed for the defence.

Under section 13 of the Act all Chinese resident in the colony at the time it came into operation were exempt from payment of the poll-tax, on o»----taining _a certificate of exemption from a Resident Magistrate; The defence in this case was that the defend ant was exempted by virtue or a certificate of exemption issued to one Fong Fop by the Resident Magistrate at Wellington. The defendant stated that all hough the name given him at his birth was Gin Ah You, he1 subsequently took the name of Fong ]<"oo when he went to Wellington in 1881, and afterwards to Christchureh. Two Chinese witnesses were called to show that he was known to them in Christohnreh under the name of Fong Foo, as well as by his birth name. It was dear that the defendant had been in. an Auckland garden about 7 years ago, and a European witness deposed that defendant at. that time had a name beginning with Fong. This witness, however, was not very clear about it. The defendant left New Zealand, and returned in March Ist last, when he produced to the Customs authorities the exemption certificate before the Court. The Customs officers were not satisfied-that lie warr Fong Foo. Defendant had not given [ the customary''notice to the Customs on leaving New Zealand. His Worship said the defendant had not satisfied him that he was the person (Fong Foo) named in the certificate, nor was the defendant's account of how he obtained the certificate satisfactory . Defendant had saiti he paid a Chinaman named Chin Hoc* 5/ to get the certificate for him. Presuming that the Wellington Magistrate acted in accordance with the Act. pome person giving the name of Fong Foo must have appeared before him and applied for and obtained the certificate. ' The Magistrate would not issue a certificate to Hock on the latter asking for it. Even accepting clefendnnt's account, the assumption wasthat the defendant got the certificate from some other Chinaman. It might be observed, with regard to the witnesses for the- defence-, that their evidence, if reliable, only went to show that the defendant only assumed the name of Fong Foo after leaving Wellington and going to Christchurcli, and after giving 5/ for the certificate issued in that name. Moreovei', a letter found in defendant's possession, purporting, to be written by his brother, suggested that, he should get back fo the colony by means of naturalisation papers, which a certain Chinese had in his possession. The defendant said he wrote the letter him-1 self to practice Chinese handwriting', but the explanation, even if true, suggested that his mind must have been running'on some illegal means of get^ ting back to the colony. It was clear he went in Auckland by the name or Gin Ah You, and no cause had been shown for his i-everting to that name if he had assumed the other. Then his evidence as to his demeanour in tlie Customs office was against the defendant. His Worship was not satisfied with the defence, and accused must be convicted. Mr Reed submitted that there could be no conviction, as the £100 had been already paid. Mr Tole: That is paid by the Union Company. It has nothing to do witn the case. It was simply paid to secure the company from prosecution. Mr Reed: I can't see how there can be a conviction after the money has been paid. It was found by defendant and his friends, and paid through the Union Company to the Government before he was allowed to land. His Worship: The Act is certainly peculiar on that, point. Section 4 makes the master of the vessel liable to pay the £100, and there seems to be some 'doubt whether the issue of the certificate would exempt tne Union Company from paying tne £100. s ,- ' , Mr Tole said the money was held simply as security. There had been no payment. His Worship remarked that Mr Reefl had not raised the question during ''the hearing of the case. Mr Reed: Although the point was not raised the evidence on the point was before the Court.

His Worship: I understood that the payment was a deposit pending the settlement of the question by these proceedings'. If you had said that yesterday there would have been an end to the matter.

Mr. Reed: Surely the point can be taken at any time.

JTis Worship: I don't see how I can go into that now. Tf: I agree to what you say it would .simply leave the money hung1 up. The Customs did not accept it as an absolute payment. If they accepted it as the poll-tax, why should they bring this action?

Mr Tole asked His Worship to Inflict a penalty in addition to the polltax, for the use of a false certificate. They did not ask for a, heavy penalty.

Defendant was convicted and fined 10/ and costs £10 11/4, while the £100 already deposited was ordered to be retained by the Government.