OPIUM TRAFFICKERS

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 192, 9 May 1924, Page 8

OPIUM TRAFFICKERS

POLICE RAID IN RAINING STREET TWO £4O FINES IMPOSED For some time past certain premises in Haining Street have been suspected of harbouring opium traffickers, Llunese who obtain large quantities ot the drug from seamen and others ana retail it among their countrymen. Plain-clothes policemen investigated on Tuesday, affil the result was the appearance of two elderly Chinese fore Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Loo Too admitted that he had been found in possession of opium in a form suitable for smoking, but Joe Teo, the other accused, gave a flat denial to the charge. . Mr. E. T. AV. Maclaurin, Collector ot Customs, prosecuted, and Mr. A. B. Sievwrigtit represented both accused. In evidence, Plain-clothes Constable Johnston said that tho police had had reason to believe that the occupants of No. 5 Haining Street were trafficking in opium. When witness and another officer visited the premises on Tuesday afternoon they found Jo ° Yee Loo Too, and another Chinaman, inside. Cn making a search, they found a large quantity of opium under the house, and also under an outhouse. It was done up in cigarette packets, obviously ready for sale, when the party approached the house xee was seen to hurriedly push some material into the fireplace, but it was subsequently recovered. A pipe was found concealed at the back of the chimney. Too was arrested at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, and Yeo on Wednesday morning. While passing down Tory Street on the way to the station, the latter threw away a piece of paper containing some opium, and when searched at the watchhouse he was relieved of another small piece. . . , Corroborative evidence was given by Plain-clothes Constable Ambrose. Mr. Sievwright said that Too was the occupier of the house, inasmuch ns he paid the rent, and there was no evidence before the Court to upset that contention. Evidence would be called to show that tho small pieces of opium said to have been found on Yee were not suitable for smoking. Loo Too, through an interpreter, told the Court that he was suffering from ill-health, and that he was staying at No. 56 Haining Street for the purpose of curing his complaint. He admitted having in his possession opium in a form suitable for smoking, which he kept on account _of his illness. He was the occupier of the premises and paid the rent. Joe Yee had nothing to do with tho opium. Mr. Maclaurin: Did you not say yesterday that Joe Yee paid the rent? Witness: Yesterday I said that I bought the premises from Joe Yee on March 1 last, and have paid the rent since.

His Worship: Does that mean that you took the tenancy over? Witness: Joe Yee was the previous occupier, and I took it over. Does he live on the premises?—“Joe Yee is staying there while his leg is being attended to.” Asked who the landlord was, witness said he was a European, whose name lie did not know. Ho called for the rent every Monday. His Worship decided to record a conviction. He held that Yee. was the joint occupier of tho premises. He had lived there, slept there, and there was no documentary evidence to show that he did not pay the rent. The fact that the two packets found in his possession contained opium in a form suitable for smoking made him guilty in that respect also. Mr. Maclaurin pressed for a heavy penalty. “It seems a. serious offence,” he said, “as the indications are that they were carrying on business in a very large way. They were not iust smoking themselves; they were selling it.”

The Magistrate said a substantial fine would be imposed. Accused had been found in possession of quite a considerable quantity of opium, and there was the constable’s suggestion that they were trading in it. Each accused was fined £4O and costs. No time was allowed for the payment of the fine, and the alternative was fixed at two months’ imprisonment.