EVIDENCE FROM CHINA

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 19 October 1933, Page 4

EVIDENCE FROM CHINA

PERMIT FOR COMMISSION APPEAL COURT DECISION; (fay Telegraph—Fress Association., WELLINGTON Oct. IS. The Court of Appeal to-day, delivering .judgment in the case of Doo v. Ghana., granted permission to take evidence in China upon condition that security for £l5O to. cover respondents’ costs was given within three months. The coux-t held that the discretion of the trial judge 'had not been exercised on the right of principle, but that as the appeal had isucceeded only in part full costs should not be allowed. The case concerned an appeal of Thomas Wong Doo, Auckland, a merchant, from the decision of Mr Justice Herdinan dismissing an application for leave to take evidence of witnesses living in China. Doo is the sole executor of the will of Wong Quoi, late of Auckland, a market gardener who wa® knocked down and run over by a van owned by the present l’espondent, Kana Bhana, in Auckland on December 16, 1981. He issued proceedings claiming £l2O general and £2OOO • special damages on behalf of A,u Kno Chi, widow of Wong Quoi, and Ah Nu (otherwise Wong Mow) and Cho Har, children of deceased.

Doo then applied to the court for commission to take the evidence of the widow Au Kuo Chi and of the dependents, All Fook, Lee Sha, and Dee Kong Moon near H'ong Kong, as well as the evidence of persons able to prove the records of an expert in Chinese law as to the validity of the ceremony of marriage. Mr Justice Herdman, in refusing to grant commission, stated : “It is said that polygamy is permissible in China, so Qnoi may have had more than one wife and more than one family. It follows, therefore, that there may be other claimants for compensation.” As the trial was before a jury his Honour held that all the evidence as to marriage and paternity of the children should be heard before the jury, and that the witnesses should be brought to New Zealand.