CHINESE IN COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 94, 22 April 1926, Page 6

CHINESE IN COURT.

TROUBLE OVER ACCOUNT. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. For two hours this morning Mr. Justic Herdman sat in the Supreme Court and listened to the sing-song jargon of a Chinese litigant, whose evidence was translated into English by an interpreter. Wah Lee, merchant, of Auckland, was the plaintiff, and Wille Chong, market gardener, of Wanganui, the defendant. Mr. Hogg appeared for Lee, and Mr. Slipper, of Wanganui, for defendant. Plaintiff set out in his claim that he had supplied defendant with certain goods, to the total value of £762 6/8. Defendant then gave plaintiff furniture valued at. £210 16/6. Judgment was asked for the difference, £551 0/2. As an alternative cause of action, plaintiffalleged'■ that he had shown defendant aa account for this sum, and that Chong bad agreed verbally that it was correct. Defendant admitted that he had been supplied with goods, but denied that their value was £762. On the other hand, he declared that the value of the furniture: he supplied was greater than that set out by plaintiff. Chong denied that he owed any money, also that any account had been taken, or shown to him, and that, if it was shown to him, he did not agree that it was,correct. A Chinese account book and some letters were produced. A Chinese with a, University education swore to the translation of the documents. ' During his evidence he stated that some English names of firms had been written in as they would be pronounced by Chinese. Asked by Mt. Slipper whether it was possible to recognise Chinese handwrit* ing, witness said that it was, if the writer adopted a plain style, but if a script—a sort of Chinese shorthandwas ueed, it was very difficult. Mr. Slipper explained to the Court that his client was not present. 'In view of the evidence, counsel did not address the Court or call any evidence. His Honor said that it was quite clear from the evidence that an account had been stated, and that Jefendant had admitted it. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.