CHINESE IN LAW SUIT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18879, 29 November 1924, Page 13

CHINESE IN LAW SUIT.

MONEY FOR WIDOW IN CHINA.

HAMILTON MAN'S CLAIM.

MERCHANT FIRM SUED.

An unusual action for the recovery of money, in which a number of Chinese were concerned, was heard by Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court yesterday. John William Walsh (Mr. Anderson), an agent, of Hamilton, sought to recover from Wah Lee (Mr. Dickson and Mr. Munro), merchants, of Auckland, the sum of £443 lis sd, being balance of money left by a deceased Chinese, Wong How Chee, for transmission by Walsh to Wong How Chee's widow and son, in China. The defendants denied liability, and alternatively contended that the money in question had been handed by them to the next of kin in New Zealand, Wong Bak Sheung, who was to send it to China.

Mr. Anderson said that when Wong How Chee was ill in hospital in 1920, he asked Walsh to see that all his property should, if he died, be sent to his wife and son, in China. Wong How Chee, who was a market gardener, in partnership with Wong Wai, died, and Walsh, with the consent and assistance of Wong Wai, wound up the estate, holding the partnership moneys in hand. A dispute arose as to what proportion of money was due to Wong How Chee, and it was referred to the Chinese Masonic Society, in Auckland. The society, on October 11, 1920, decided that £633 lis 5d was due to Wong How Chee's estate. China then was over-run with bandits. After discussion with the society, Walsh decided that the safest way to transmit the money was through the agency of Wah Lee, the defendants, who had representatives in China. Walsh gave his own cheque to Wah Lee for £1025 16s lOd, part of which sum was due to Wong Wai. A Visit to China. Early in 1923, the counsel continued, Walsh received information which led him to believe the money had not gone to China. Walsh saw Wah Lee, and on being pressed the latter said that £150 had been sent to China and that the balance had been paid to Wong Bak Sheung. Walsh told Wah Lee he would look to them to make good the money, and Wah Lee agreed to refund it to Walsh. Walsh, who was going to China, asked Wah Lee to pay the money, and then he would personally hand it to the widow. He allowed Wah Lee time to get the money from Wong Bak Sheung. The last-mentioned claimed that £30 was owing by the deceased, and he asked that it be deducted from the balance due from Wah Lee. Walsh agreed to that deduction, provided that the whole of the balance was paid to him. Wong Bak Sheung, said Mr. Anderson, paid £30 to Wah Lee, and the last-men-tioned sent Walsh a cheque for £40. Walsh paid the money he had received to the widow in China, and on his return ho demanded the balance from Wah Lee. Wah Lee then denied liability, and a writ was issued. It was admitted that £190 had been accounted for. Under cross-examination, plaintiff said he had always looked to Wah Lee for the money, and not to anybody else. He understood that Wong Bak Sheung was a nephew of Wong How Chee, but he could not say he was the next-of-kin in New Zealand. So far as he knew Wong Wai was a nephew, as well as a partner with Wong How Chee. Motion for a Non-suit. Mr. Dickson moved that the plaintiff be non-suited. Walsh, he 6aid, had not taken out letters of administration, nor was he the executor. ' His Honor said that was immaterial. Walsh had handed over the money with a mandate to Wah Lee to do certain things, and if they did not carry out the mandate plaintiff was entitled to recover Mr. Dickson submitted that Walsh was executor de son tort—that was to say, he had only responsibilities and no rights. His Honor: He is suing, not as executor, but as J. W. Walsh. His Honor said he would reserve the points. Mr. Dickson said that if the money were handed over now to the plaintiff the widow could sue Wah Lee. Mr. Anderson: Pay it to the widow; we shall be satisfied. Mr. Dickson, proceeding, said the money was paid to Wah Lee, as banker or agent, to be used at the direction of Wong Bak Sheung. His Honor: And who, according to the answers to your interrogatories, to use a slang phrase, has " collared the most of it." Mr. Dickson said that because it had beet. " collared " by Wong Bak Sheung Juaintiff was trying to fall back on Wah jee because they had money. Evidence Given by Chinese. Wong Wai stated that he received his share of the partnership estate from Wab Lee. Gin Sing Fong, late secretary of the Chinese Masonic Society, said the meeting in October, 1920, was called by Wong Bak Sheung. Witness knew nothing about the money. Dang Yen, a partner in the firm of Wah Lee, stated that he was present at the meeting in October, 1920, called by Wong Bak Sheung. Asked if the £1025 was handed to his brother, Kuk Yen, witness replied " I think so," and then added, " I forget." Witness, continuing, said the money was placed with his brother to give to Wong Bak Sheung to send to China. The firm of Wah Lee acted as bankers for the Chinese.

Wong Bak Sheung stated that Wong Wai was not so nearly related to the deceased as witness was. At the meeting of the society, Walsh wrote a cheque and handed it to him and he (witness) called to Kuk Yen, partner to Dang Yen. Kuk Yen was to pay the debts of the deceased and send the rest to the widow and son in China. In addition to the £150 witness bad sent other sums to China.

Mr. Anderson said the widow had acknowledged £150 altogether. "Witness said he held back some of the money because ho understood deceased's son was coming to New Zealand. He thought he had about £200 left, but did not know where the money was. In the meantime he had spent it. His Honor said that if the money had been spent it was the widow's loss. The question, was: "Who paid over the money originally, and who had the distribution of it?

Upon Mr. Dickson stating that Kuk Yen was too ill to attend, His Honor adjourned the case until Monday.

Judge Reserves Decision.

His Honor, without calling upon Mr. Anderson to address the Court, said that plaintiff, being in possession of £1025 16s lOd, paid it to defendants, who accepted it and undertook to do certain things-with it. That was not the estate of deceased; it was the joint realisation of the partners' .property and was handed, according to the evidence, to Wah Lee to pay out Wong Wai's share and send the other money to the widow. He could not speak definitely until the other evidence was given, but assuming that proved, it was not a question of Walsh l>eing executor at all. Tt was ft case of principal and agent. It seemed to His Honor that the action was well-founded, if established on fa-ct, but he would reserve his decision till ho had heard the other evidence.