CHINESE FEUD

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 237, 8 May 1933, Page 3

CHINESE FEUD

Counsel’s Charge “A DELIBERATE PLANT” Sequel to Police Raid During the hearing of a charge of permitting his premises to he used for the concealment of prepared opium, brought against Wong Yet, aged 27, market gardener, in the Police Court at Auckland, Mr. L. P. Leary, appearing for Wong Yet, alleged that his client’s arrest was the result of a deliberate “plant ’ by a man who was acting for a rival Chinese faction. Wong Yet pleaded not guilty. Detective Mahood said he went to a house at No. 5 Duke Street at 4 p.m. on Sunday, April 2.'!, as the result of complaints received by the police that Chinese were smoking opium there. He there found a ChinI ese smoking opium. He discovered j a small quantity of opium, also a tin ; which had contained opium, secreted under the house. As the result of further inquiries, while in company ’ with Detective Packman, he met accused in Harding Street on April 29 and asked him if he was the occupier of the premises in Duke Street. Wong Yet replied that he was, but lie said the opium found there was i not his property. Wong Yet had a | key to this house, and allowed witness and Detective Packman to ] search the house. They did not find any more opium. There was an iron bar across the inside of the back door, while the front door had wedges jin it on the inside. Wong Yet said 1 lie lived in a house in Harding Street , and showed witness his bedroom there. No opium was found at these premises, but witness produced a lamp which he said he found in \\ ong Yet’s room. Wong Yet said he used the lamp for reading. Detective Mahood said it could be used in connection with opium smoking. Detective Packman gave corroborative evidence. Man Who Showed Police Cross-examined by Mr. Leary, Detective Mahood said that a' man named Buchanan came to the Duke Street house when witness was searching for opium. He also admitted that Buchanan had showed him where the opium was. “I will have to dig up a piece of secret and past history if I am to properly put forward a defence for Wong Yet,” said Mr. Leary. Counsel said he could satisfy the magistrate that Wong Yet was not the occupier of the Duke Street house. The place where some opium was found was a communal lavatory for four different houses, and it could not be proved that Wong Yet permitted opium to be concealed there. He was not there when the detectives visited the place. In fact, another Chinese was caught smoking there, and had since been fined £25 for the offence.. “Feud Started”

“I can bring evidence to prove to your Worship that this was a ‘plant’ and the result of a long-stand-ing feud between two rival factions of Chinese,” added Mr. Leary. “Six months ago my client and another Chinese were proceeded against for using knives and stealing a sum of money in a fantan gambling den in Grey’s Avenue. They both appeared in the Supreme Court and were acquitted, and rightly so, too. Their reason for taking the money was that cheating was going on there, and they wanted to put a stop to it. Their rivals kept this against them and the feud started. Wong Yet frankly admits that he supplied the police with information that a Chinese named Alan On was to get a quantity of opium. The police acted on this information, arrested Alan On, and he was fined a considerable sum. Alan On moved for revenge, and I allege that a man named Buchanan, in the employ of Willie On, a brother of Alan On’s, planted this opium and went and told the police where it was. A Chinese named Wong Mow leases the Duke Street house, and it was merely a coincidence that when the police met Wong Yet he had the key to Wong Mow’s i house. Wong Mow gave it to accused when he went out to Avondale to look for work.”

Mr. Leary submitted that Wong Yet was not the occupier. It was, he said, profoundly suspicious that a man in the employ of Wong Yet’s avowed enemies should he at the house when the detectives arrived there and should point out the hidden opium to them. The whole case was yet another development in the long series of prosecutions and crossprosecutions as the result of the Chinese feud. Wong Yet, in evidence, denied that he told the detectives that he was the occupier of the Duke Street house. "Not Sufficient Evidence” The magistrate, Mr. W, 11. McKean, S.M., said there was not sufficient evidence to justify a conviction on such a charge. Another person had been found there by the police and not accused. Wong Yet immediately denied that the opium was his when first seen by the detectives. The charge would therefore be dismissed. Detective-Sergeant McHugh, who prosecuted, said he wished to make it quite clear that if there was any feud between the Chinese, the police were not aware of it. The police would not be a party to anything which was the result of animosity between Chinese. Mr. Leary said he never suggested that, it was a “plant” or a “frame-up” on the part of the police, and he was sure the police would not be a party to such a thing.