PAKAPOO CASES

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 142, 19 June 1922, Page 8

PAKAPOO CASES

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

POINTS OF LAW,

Appeals were made to the Supreme Court, before the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, and Mr. Justice Hosking, to-day, against convictions and fines imposed by Mr. F. X Hunt, S.M., against six Chinamen, Ah Lym, Yee Fon, Sing Tong, Loo Toe, Youiig Suey, and Git Toon, who were charged under the Gaming Act on the information of Detective T. E. Holmes with having been concerned, in February, in the play or conduct of what the police style a pakapoo house in Haining-street. Young Suey and Git Toon were each fined~Moo and the other four each £5. The main dijTiculty which confronted the police in the Lower Court was that no Chinaman or other person able to read the characters in the many -bundles of unused tickets or on the few marked tickets could be persuaded to come forward and give evidence as to the meanings of the idiograms. When requests to Chinese, not only in Wellington, but in other centres, were one and all refused, the police endeavoured to secure the evidence of a. missionary who had gained an'expert knowledge of Chinese writing during a period of service in the East, but she too declined to give evidence as to the significance of the eighty characters. The Magistrate over-ruled counsel for the defence, Mr. E. G. Jellicoe, in his contention that that evidence was essential before convictions could be recorded and imposed fines as stated above. Mr. Jellieoe at once gave notice to appeal on all cases.

In the lower Court bundles of tickets and other articles seized made a show as exhibits, but to-day the exhibits took second place in number and bulk—and weight—to the array of authorities before counsel, Mr. Jellicoe and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey (for the Crown). The appeal of Ah Lyn was first considered to-day. Until the police had proved that the premises No. 7, Hainingstreet, were used as a common gaming house, said counsel for the appellants, those persons found in the place were not called -upon to explain their presence there. Beyond the ai'rest of the appellants, at the house, there was no ground for the evidence laid before the Magistrate. Nothing seized 'on the premises, said counsel, was proved to be such as brought the premises within the wording of ,the charges. Two sets of "documents printed in a foreign language" were stated by the Magistrate to be pakapoo tickets, but upon that point no admissible evidence was placed before him. THE COURT DOES NOT KNOW. / "No evidence was given as to what the tickets vjfcre," said counsel, "they may be laundry tickets from over the way." Mr. Justice Hosking: "Or tracts." Counsel: "Your honours could not say, under the rules of evidence, what those documents were." Mr. Justice Hosking: "They might be burglar's instruments. If a detective produced them and said : 'These are burglar's instruments,' I should believe him; if he told me that they were pakapoo tickets I should believe him. Was there any evidence that the tickets were made out in Chinese characters?"— "No." . ■

"Then why should you treat them as being anything more than the marks on wall paper?" Mr. Macassey: "There was the evidence of the detective who had worked among the Chinese for eleven years." Mr. Justice Hosking to Mr. Jellicoe: "Will you tell me what is your authority for saying that these are Chinese characters. Are these black marks (referring to a marked ticket) part of the Chinese language?"—" You have before you foreign documents."

"I don't know that they are documents in a foreign language. These are papers on which are a number of embellishments. These black marks .." —"I understand that they are put on afterwards."

"For all I know they may be of as much significance as those in green. They may be some form of Chinese shorthand or the embellishments may be nothing more ' than the marks a child might make."

Counsel: "They are useless to the prosecution. If they are called pakapoo tickets then upon dozens of authorities in New Zealand and Australia it must be shown : that those tickets or papers contain a contract." His Honour: "They may be given as tokens, just as tickets without any particular wording entitle one to admission to a certain building." Counsel: " You can see that the tickets are not in the English language." His Honour: "Well, can you tell me whether they are in Japanese or Chi-, nese?"—" It is one or the other." " Which?"—" Chinese." " Well, to me it is no more than a bit of paper with embellishments on it." " Even though it were proved," continue Mr. Jellicoe, " that the papers found" in the possession of the appellants were pakapoo tickets, that would establish nothing against the appellanfs (those found on the premises), for they may have been purchased anywhere els» One of these documents might possibly be found on every second or third Chinaman in the street." • r Mr. Justice Hosking: "If these #ien were found in a common gaming house, does it matter whether tickets or handkerchiefs were found in" their pockets?" Counsel answered that it did not, and held that the conviction of Git Ton upon a charge of having been the occupier of a common gaming house was not evidence against the other' appellants.' U]ion that point Mr. Macassey agreed. " Counsel then referred in detail to the rules of evidence, and cited many authorities in support of his arguments. Questions between the Court and counsel, arose as to the notes taken in the Lower Court, counsel holding that the Magistrate had found on facts in respect of which no true evidence had been tendered. The Chief Justice ruled that the Court 'could not review the Magistrate's decision upon questions of facts. "Except," replied Mr. Jellicoe, "when there is no evidence, and here there is none." THE CROWN'S ARGUMENTS. Shortly, Mr. Macassey's arguments were: (1) That the Magistrate found as a fact that the tickets found in the possession of the appellants were pakapoo tickets, and that his judgment could not be interfered with unless the appellants could show that there was no evidence to go to a jury upon the point; if there was such evidence, the Magistrate's decision must be upheld; (2) that section 7 of the Gaming Act, 1908, made the finding of tickets in the possession of two of the four, appellants evidence that the house was a common Raining house unless (lie contrary could be proved; (3) that the appellants did not prove that they woro in the house for any lawful purpose; (4) to prove that the tickets were pakapoo tickets it was not necessary to coll expert witnesses to prove that the tickets were mncie ont/ in Chinese characters; (5) that where an/ unlawful game was statute burred the method of playing it was common knowledge. Mr. Macassey then proceeded to cite authorities in support of his contentions. The Court reserved decision upon the first Four cases, and proceeded with the consideration of the appeals of Git Toon jmd Young Subv