FAN TAN BANK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26413, 18 March 1947, Page 6

FAN TAN BANK

MONEY STOLEN FROM SAFE SHAREHOLDERS CLAIM REFUND P.A. AUCKLAND, Mar. 17. The circumstances of the theft of a safe from Chinese premises in Grey’s avenue in January of last year were recalled in the hearing of a civil claim for* the recovery of money broughtbefore Mr Justice Johnston to-day. The safe, which was alleged to have contained £SOOO, was afterwards recovered by the police from the Manukau harbour and three men—a Chinese, a European and a Maori—were subsequently each sentenced to a year’s reformative detention for their part in the crime. The plaintiffs in the action were Wong Gee Yeat, a fruiterer, and 25 other Chinese who sought to recover from the defendant, Lee Hoy Chong» sums totalling £1541 alleged to have been entrusted to him and which he had failed to return. The defence was that the money, if paid, had been paid for the illegal purpose of running a fan tan bank and was therefore not recoverable. It was further submitted that money belonging to the bank, to the value of £4500, had been stolen from .the defendant’s safe through no fault of his.

Mr Meredith said that this was a claim for money he had received and it was alleged that the money had been lost as the result of the defendant’s negligence. It had been kept in a small safe that could easily be manhandled and the defendant had not even slept' on the premises. Fan tan' was popular among Chinese, and the' plaintiffs had each contributed £6O to; ward the capital of two fan tan banks, Lee Chong had received £8 a week to keep this money in safe custody. The capital of each bank was £5700, and Lee Chong had to produce £SOO from this each time play started. There were no odds in favour of the bank, and the game was absolutely fair, although, of course, it was a game of chance that had been'declared illegal At the end of each Saturday night, if there was any excess capital in the bank, it was-divided among the shareholders. The purpose for which the money was to be used did not affect the validity of the plaintiff’s claim. The hearing was adjourned. 1