A CUNNING CHINESE.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15894, 7 May 1917, Page 4

A CUNNING CHINESE.

I ' ' -4— : . CLEVERLY DEFRAUDS THE CUSTOMS. > A clcver fraud by .1 young Chinese nam,cd Wong Wah was described in the Magistrate's Court last week, when Wall was ' charged 011 two informations with committing breaches of the Immigration Restriction Act. It was alleged that the accused entered Now Zealand without having paid tho sum of £100 and also landed in New Zealand without having fulfilled tho requirements of the Act. When previously before the Court, Wah pleaded not guilty. Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., was Bench. Mr P. S. K. Maca-ssey' appeared for the Crown, and, Mr M. Myerg represented the defendant. At the outset, Mr Myers said he had had th© opportunity of seeing the defendant and some well-known Chinese residents,, and also of ascertaining tho nature of the evidence. He Was now convinced tl|p.t 'the "case was: one in which the accused should alter his plea to'one of .guilty.' In outlining the case for the Crown, Mr Macassay stated that' the accused arrived in Auckland on April 25th, 1915. Ho came from Fiji, representing himself to a, banana plantation worker who had come to New Zealand to obtain medical advice. A license was granted for - Wall to remain in NewZealand for six months. The accused came to Wellington under an assumed name, and received his permit to leave the Dominion temporarily, the Customs 'i Department being under the impres{sion that Wait was a bona fide Chinese resident. Ho went back to Auckland, | and left that port, lor Sydney. From I Sydney ho returned to Wellington, and j landed -without having paid tho £100 j tax or having passed the education test. It was a carefully laid plan on the accuscd's part to dodge his liability under the Act. Mr Myers said that the accused would not be in a position to pay a heavy fine. If he was allowed to remain in ;New Zealand counsel had 11c doubt that the necessary £100' would be found. Mr Macassev: Ho cannot remain I here. Tho Magistrate: This is not, a case for leniency. Tho whole tiling has been done designedly. Defendant will be fined the maximum penalty, namely, £50. . .