BUSINESS RIVALRY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15900, 11 April 1912, Page 5

BUSINESS RIVALRY.

CHINESE AND "WHITE FRUITERERS. TROUBLE IN AN AUCTION ROOM. Memories of the reednt anti-Chinese demonstrations were revived at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, when James Nancarrow (Mr Donnelly) was charged with having, on April 2, assaulted Yau Train Chan, and also with having, on tho same date, used obscene language. Mr T. A. B. Bailey, 9.M., was on the Bench. Yau Tsun Clian, tho plaintiff, who gave his evidence clearly and intelligently, and in very fair English, said that he was a Christian missionary residing at Dunedin.. He arrived in Christchurch on April 2 and visited Marshall’s auction room in company with two other Chinese, Chew Lee and Quong Hop. The auction was going on and bananas were being sold. Tho defendant first pushed Quong Hop. Plaintiff, who illustrated his remarks with graphic gestures, said that his companions had not spoken at all, but defendant pushed him and swore at him. Witness told defendant to come outside if he wanted a figlit and not make a row in there. He and his friends had not been bidding hut merely looking on. Witness here produced his steamer ticket to Auckland, emphasising his desire to tell “the wholo truth.’’ Mr Donnelly: Why were you at the auction room? Tho Magistrate: I suppose his friend ■was showing him the sights. Mr Donnelly: Well, did he take you to sec tho Museum or any other of the sights of tho city? Witness: Yes, he took me to another auction mart; Witness then went on to illustrate his evidence by reference to per eons in the, Court, and pointing to the clerk of the Court, to his discomfiture, said: “ This is a Chinaman, this is Quong Hop.” Stepping out of fho box, ho then gave a spirited illustration of the way in which ho wa.s pushed, enriying on liis gymnastics in uncomfortable proximity 'to the examining lawyer, who hastily told him to desist. Chew' Leo, a fruiterer in Lower High Street, who had been at. the market, gave similar evidence. Addressing the defendant across the Court, witness' asked him spiritedly: “ You business people, we business people, then why you push, you shove?” Accused had addressed obscene language to them. Thp auctioneer would not sell fruit to Chinamen. Another man told accused to leave the Chinamen alone, hut lie would not. “ Other man a gentleman,’’ added the witness. Quong Hop, fruiterer in High Street, gave his evidence through an interpreter and corroborated tho statements of the previous witnesses. Mr Donnelly: But was the missionary vexed when ho was pushed or did ho “turn tho other cheek?” Witness: No, ho was not vexed. Eviaonco corroborative of that given by previous witnesses w'as given by Edward Bennett and Walter Charles Hooper. Mr Donnelly said that there was feeling between white and Chinese fruiterers, since the Chines© had come from Wellington to root the white men out. They had a perfectly legal right to do so, hut when they had secured a monopoly of the trade by means of underselling tho white men they wmuld recoup themselvos for their losses earlier in the competition, as they were doing now in Wellington. When these young, well-groomed Chinamen came into Court it was obvious that they had such an object, in view, and the white fruiterers were justified in trying to defeat their aim. Defendant had been in Christchurch for forty ,years and when ho denied having used the obscene language surely Ins evidence was as reliable as that or a Chinaman. The aim of the prosecutors was merely to put a stain on the character of a white fruiterer, and if the. jostling had occurred among white men no moro would have been said of it. It would be a pity if men like defendant were pushed out of the trade by men who horded together in dozens in black alleys, and often slept on, the fruit they sold. ■ Francis Mumford said he had bepn in tho auction room on the day in question. Ho had seen Chew Lee strike at Nancarrow, and had warded off tho blow. It was customary at auction sales for the men to pull out tho men in front of them in a friendly way, in order to get a. bettor position, Tho pushing had been no worse on April 2 than on any other day. The auctioneer who had been selling at the time stated that ho did not seo Nancarrow interfere with the plaintiff. Another witness said that ho had Keen Nancarrow push the Cinnamon but had not heard him uso bad language. The defendant said ho had been pushed against the Chinamen and had put out his hand instinctively to prevent a collision, whereupon the Chinaman had struck him and had invited) him out for n figlit. The evidence of tho Chinese, was untrue. It wa? well known they were the greatest liars on earth. , , The Magistrate said that defendant would be convicted on the first charge. The second would bo dismissed. Thor© was no doubt defendant had a great antipathy towards Chinamen. There was a great deal of feeling between tho Chines© and white fruiterers, and no doubt this was natural, for the Chiueso had a reputation foi undersoiling and cornering tho trado. Blit the Chines© had a legal right to carry on their business and it was t.ie doty of the Court to see that their right wa© respected. Defendant would lie fined 7s and ordered to pay witnesses exponses, £3 13s.