MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 460, 5 June 1909, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M.) The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday. FOUND IN POSSESSION OF OPIUM. Ly Sung and Young Lee were charged on the information of the police, with on May 27, 1909, being unlawfully found in possession of opium, and farther charged with unlawfully smoking opium on the same date. Wong Lee was also charged with, on May 27th, being unlawfully found in the possession of opium. The police withdrew the charges of smoking against defendant, Ly Sung and Young Lee, and the charges for being found in possession of opium were proceeded with. All three cases were taken together. Ly Sung and Young Lee pleaded guilty, and Wong Lee not guilty. Constable Woods conducted the case on behall of the police, and Mr Barnard appeared for defendants. Constable Sweeney said that on May 27, at about 10.30 p.m., he visited Wong Lee’s camp. After searching the whare occupied by Young Lee, as be was leaving he met Wong Lee and asked him if had got any opium. Accused said “No.” He (accused) made an action as if throwing something away. It was a very dark night, and witness could not see whether he had thrown anything away or not. Accused then asked witness to go with him and search his whare. Searched the whare, but found no opium. Then returned to where he had previously spoken to Wong Lee, and made a search and found a pipe, a tin of opium, and a pipe bowl. _ Young Lee was present at the time. Constable Woods was also present. To Mr Barnard : Could not see what Wong Lee threw away, as it was a very dark night, but was certain that something was thrown away. Young Lee had told witness that the articles found did not belong to him. When witness asked Wong Lee if he had any opium, he said •• “I don’t smoke this long time. One time I used to smoke 25s worth opium a week but not now-” Accused also said to witness, “Can you prove the pipes and opium are mine?” Constable Woods corroborated the previous witnesses’ evidence. After accused had been served with the summons, be had come into his (witness’) office and asked what witness thought be would be fined. Had told him that be thought possibly ten shillings. Accused then offered to pay him that amount. Witness refused to take it, and told accused that it would come before the Magistrate. Accused then said : “I don’t think you can prove it.” No evidence was called for the defence.

Mr Barnard submitted that the ; charge against Wong Bee could not be sustained. No opium was ; found in his whare, and the evi-. dence which sought to connect him ; with the subsequent discovery of the tin of opium and pipe on the ■ ground, was not sufficient to convict upon. Accused frankly told the constables that he had indulged in opium smoking some years ago but that he did not smoke now. The tin and pipe might well have belonged to Young Bee, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of possessing the drug. On behalf of the other accused, ( counsel stated that they were both , old men who had probably contracted the opium habit in China | during their youth. They were both in wretched health, and if they had been used to smoking opium, it would be almost fatal for them to abstain from it now. They could not really be held responsible. The real offenders, who deserved severe punishment, were those who sold the drug to the Chinese. Cotinsel went on to say that so long as the community was not in any way affected, no true crime was committed, though technically it might be so. The object of law was to allow men full personal freedom, so long as they did not harm their neighbours. Here the only sufferers were the accused themselves. Morally, they were innocent. They were incapable of leading others to acquire the opium habit, and not even their fellow Chinese would be at all influenced by them. When the miserable state of the accused, physically and financially, was taken into account the wonder was not that they smoked opium at all, but that they smoked so little. The British nation was largely to blame for the widespread use of opium among the Chinese, and it was only a few years ago that the importation of opium into China was stopped by the Imperial Government. In punishing the use, of opium, it was necessary to bear in mind that our own nation had helped to bring about the state of things which the law now condemned so severely. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that the maximum fine for being found in possession of opium was which showed that this offence was looked upon as a serious one. By Sung (who had a previous conviction against him) would be convicted and fined £6, costs 7s ; Wong Bee £3, costs 7s ; Young Bee costs 7s. Mr Barnard asked that the accused be allowed time in which to pay the fines, as they were in poor circumstances, The Magistrate said that he had no power to do so, and the accused would have to remain in custody until the fines were paid. ATTACSME&T order. In the case of A. R. Osborne v. IF. Robinson, an application for an

attachment order on debtor’s account at the Bank of New Zealand was made. Debtor did not appear. The manager of the bank in evidence stated that the amount standing to the credit of debtor at the bank was not sufficient to pay the full amount. The Magistrate made an order for the amount held by subdebtor viz., £2 4s 2d with costs 9 s - ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING. W- Lawlor (Mr McLean) charged J. Gimtnel (Mr Innes), with illegally impounding cattle at Oroua Bridge on May 28th. After hearing the evidence for the plaintiff and for the defence the Magistrate dismissed the case with costs 2S, solicitor fee £1 is, and witness’s expenses 20s. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases :—A. Cockburn and Sons v. George Royal, claim £1 is 3d, costs 10s 6d ; R. T. Betty v. John Binge, £1 3s 6d, costs 7s ; Anderson and Young v. William Brown, £a t 6s gd, costs 13s ; W. B. Bullard v. F. Spiers, los 6d, costs 5s ; William Ross v. James A. Campbell, £3 18s, costs 10s ;P. M. Page v. TT>*p Sing and Co. ,£l3 10s, co?is 3056 i; E.Pigott v. Mortenson .nul costs 23< 64. JUDGM'i.'IT SUMM JNS. In tnc case uf R. H. Umber V. Frank Spiers, claim £j 1* 4d, a letter was put in from judgment debtor offering to pay the amount by instalments of £1 per month. The Magissrate made an order to that effect. ■