IDENTITY OF CHINESE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21845, 6 July 1934, Page 15

IDENTITY OF CHINESE

SEQUEL TO POLICE RAID ACCUSED DENIES OFFENCE MAGISTRATE' IMPOSES FINE A question of identification was prominent in a case in the Police Court yesterday, in which a Chinese marketgardener, Ah Kong, aged 40, was charged with being found without lawful excuse on premises at 108 Hobson Street, which were being used for opium smoking. Accused, who was represented by Mr. Sullivan, pleaded not guilty. Constable Bell said that at 10.45 p.m. on June 22, as he was passing the premises, which appeared to be empty, he saw one Chinese enter and another leave. Together with Constable Cromwell, he entered the shop, the doors of which were closed, but not locked. In a room at the back accused was discovered seated at a table on which there were pakapoo tickets. Accused called out something in Chinese, and witness ran upstairs. A room at the head of the stairs was full of opium smoke, but there was no one in it. Half-an-hour later witness saw accused standing at the corner of Hobson and Wellesley Streets, and arrested him. Constable Cromwell also identified accused as the man seen at the premises. "We submit that the police have made a mistake in identification," said Mr. Sullivan.

Accused, who gave, his evidence through an interpreter, denied having been in the house. He said he had spent the whole evening up to 10.30 at a shop in Karangahape Road and then walked down Hobson Street to meet a friend. He had been speaking to his friend only a few minutes when the police came and took him to the premises at 108 Hobson Street.

Cross-examined by Sub-Inspector Edwards, accused said his name had always been Kong, not Hong. The police then called John William Mann, employee of 11. S. Newcoinb, Limited, estate agents, who identified accused as a man who had come early in May to inquire about the premises at 108 Hobson Street, for a laundry. He signed a tenancy form "Ah Hong." Witness had also seen accused on the premises the day witness first called for the rent. Witness was positive that accused was the same man, although the name was slightly different. The magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson, said that accused had not called any evidence, apart from his own, to show where he had spent the evening up to 10.30 or to prove that the two constables had been mistaken, while the evidence of the last witness showed that accused's connection with the premises was more intimate than mere presence. "T would have been prepared to treat him more leniently if he had been honest,. but I think he has tried to lie his way out," added the magistrate, in imposing a fine of £2O, in default two months' imprisonment.