Opium and Firearms.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 198, 15 August 1921, Page 5

Opium and Firearms.

CHINAMEN IN COURT. SEQUEL TO EAST WEEK’S RAID. SOME GOOD DEFENCES. As a result of the police raid for opium on Tuesday last fpur Chinamen appeared at the Napier Police Court before Mr R. W. Dyer, S.M., this morning on various charges arising from information secured by the police wh« n they entered first a laundry in Emerson street and later a hou*'*: i»t Pakowhci. The Court was well filled with spectators. Senior-Sergeant O’Halloran, prosecuted. Ah Fong, laundryman was charged ■ with smoking opium and being in pos-1 session of opium suitable, or which could be made suitable for smoking. Sue Chong, market gardener of Pakowhai appeared on charges of having opium suitable for smoking in his possession, also of having in his possession un unregistered firearm. Sue Sing was charged with being in possession of opium. Wong Ting was charged with being in j possession of an unregistered firearm, also with having in his possession an unlawful weapon to wit an automatic revolver and ammunition. Mr Lusk appeared and pleaded guilty for Fong and Chong and not guilty for Sing. The opium charges were taken first. | Concerning Sing, Sergeant McLean said he and a party visited Chong’s house at Pakowhai. Sing pulled down a window, and threw out part of tho opium smoking equipment. There was opium in the room. Mr Lusk submitted that though the man had thrown a pipe out of the window this did not prove that he was in possession of opium. The charge against Sing was dismiss-, ed. I Senior-Sergeant O’Halloran outlined] the facts as already published, and saidl the amount of opium was very small. • Mr Lusk, on behalf of the defendants, submitted that unjust treatment was meted out to these men who were not guilty of a greater offence than a man who broke his prohibition order and probably caused injury to his family. It was a habit probably acquired in China, and they took every opportunity of gratifying their desires, but did harm to none while doing so. His Worship said the difference was that the opium was absolutely prohibited while people could have liquor. The reason was that the opium drug w'as so extremely demoralising. Ah Fong, for smoking opium was fined £5 and costs 18s, and for having opium was fined £lO and costs 7s. Sue Chong for having opium in his possession was fined £lO, costs 18s. On the firearm charges, Sue Chong pleaded guilty to having an unregistered firearm, an old shot gun, in his possession. Wong Ting pleaded not guilty to having in his possession an automatic revolver. The defence was that the revolver belonged to a Chinaman who had gone on a visit to China. The Magistrate decided to convict, 1 but would defer sentence pending deciding whether the Act allowed a hue of less than the amounts of tf»O and £lOO mentioned in the Act.