WHEN AH JACK WAS WONG

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1932, Page 9

WHEN AH JACK WAS WONG

THE WILES OF AN ORIENTAL LIGHT BRIDGE TO LIGHT BILLS. MIXED FRUIT AND ELECTRICITY. CHEAPER CURRENT AT WAITARA. Ah Jack was for years known to Waitara as the courteous Chinese who sold fruit from his ehop in McLean Street. Now, however, he ifi known as Wong V»n, the mysterious dabbler in the sciences. Without ostentation he applied his knowledge by fixing a wire bridge to his electric light meter, with some profit to himself but no profit to the B ol ’oUgh Council. But while Wong On accepted impassively the rewards of his aenius the council waited patiently for Ihe rewards of its watching. And yesterday they arrived. IVong On, the amateur electrician, has now to demand from Ah Jack, the fruiterer, the money to pay a bill totalling. £l3 2s. This is how the bill is made out:— July 19: To fraudulently and without colour of right using the electricity of the . Waitara Borough Council so as to be guilty of theft £u 0 0 To installing an electric conductor without being a registered wireman or the holder of a provisional license, with costs .- £4 * “ To tampering with council apparatus while not licensed under the electric supply regulations, with costs •- • • £4 1 0. Worn? On, who has always been known to tho°uninitiated Occidentals of Waitara as Ah Jack, was given two months in which to pay the bill in weekly inetalments. Mr. R. W- Tate, S.M., said he could not make the amount any smaller. , . The electric light engineer for we borough had suspected for a long time that current was being stolen, but it was very difficult to detect. Recently, however, it was noticed that Wongs accounts had fallen by almost half compared with previous accounts, even though extra bulbs had been put m. It was a particularly serious matter, said counsel, because the Waitara borough had to buy the current it sold, eo that anything stolen from it had to be paid for. EXTRA OB ANGE IN BAG. The woeful tale of Wong’s undoing when he placed an extra orange in the was told by George O. Smith, borough council engineer. It was on July 18 that he went into Wong’s shop at 8,30 p-m. to purchase some . oranges. Wong seemed somewhat excited. As SmitTi left he glanced casually at the meter and thought he saw. ,an , e wire on it, but ho sftid; nothing. -On counting his fruit outside and finding he had°morc than he paid for he considered tho circumstances really suspicious. So he returned to the shop and discovered a wire bridge on the meter, tlife effect being to divert the current around the meter instead of through To confirm his suspicions he went back next morning with his registered wireman, Aubrey Newton, and found the bridge was there at 8.30 and 9.1© a.m. but that at 10.30 it was gone. Wong did not then know he had been discovered. At 6 p.m. one small light was on and the bridge was. not in position. At 7.30 p.m. all the lights were on, but the bridge was in position. Later that evening he interviewed Wong in the presence of the council’s s.olicitoi. Won<r admitted he put the bridge in, and Alleged someone had advised him to. ■ “Why?” asked the engineer. “Lights all just the same,” said Wong. . “That is the trouble,” replied Smith. “They all go, but the meter doesn’t.” Won<r further admitted. he , ; wa&. not a licensed electrician.. Had ...the wire bridge been placed in the wrong holes something serious would have happened, explained Smith to the court. Ou the bridge being removed the meter disc began to revolve quickly, while before it°was very sluggish, almost stationary. AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE. Next morning Wong said he had only come back to Waitara iu February. That was after it had been suggested lie had been using the bridge a long time. Smith pointed out that it yas not the previous February, but the February before that that Wong had turned to Waitara, after the earthThe previous evening Wong had said, “1 come to fiee you to-morrow morning/* *‘lt is too late now,” replied the en•rineer. “It has goue beyond that. Nevertheless next morning Wong sent an agent, Lew Clare, to interview the engineer. • , On July 20 witness installed a new meter, telling Wong not to tamper with it. Wong laughed. “A crime,” said defending counsel. Witness said that on June 1, 1929, the meter reading was 87 units and for the period ended on June 1, 193?, was for the period ended August 1, 1929, 79 units; August 1,1931,40; October 1,1929, 39. The figures meant a saving of £1 16s in the two months ended October 1 1929, as compared with tho two months ended June 1, 1929, or a saving of £lO 16s in twelve months. Since 19'39 the candle-power of the shop had been practically doubled. If the bridge had been placed in the wrong holes of the meter a short circuit would have had a serious effect at the powerhouse. The bridge was regarded as an electric conductor. Cross-examined, Smith said the bridge was jammed into the terminals though not screwed on to them. Ho would call the bridge a low-resistance wire. From the fact that the bridge was there he inferred current was being stolen. He would not be prepared to deny Wong was away from February, 1929, to April, 1931. He saw Wong return to Waitara a few nights after the earthquake. Counsel produced electric accounts received by Wong showing the following records of units used during the two months ended: February, 1930, 55 units; February, 1931, 50 units; February, 1932, 38 units; April, 1930, 56 units; April, 1931, 46 unite; April, 1932, 40 units. Smith considered the decrease from 59 to 38 units in the two Februaries was a big drop. He admitted the other figures were fairly consistent; that made them suspicious. To counsel for the borough: AVo ng had purchased a heater. In June, 1929, Wong’s meter registered 87 units and in April, 1929, 84 units. Ivor G, Prichard, solicitor, testified regarding the interview with Wong on the night of July 19. He corroborated Smith’s account of the matter. Wong had admitted to him that he put the bridge in and that he was iiot a licensed wireman. Aubrey Newton, licensed wireman, confirmed Smith’s account of occurrences on the night of July IS and the next morning. The bridge was not in the meter when he

did a repair job a few weeks previously. , - Counsel contended Wong must be proved definitely, to have installed the bridge before he could be found guilty of °theft. There was a probability that the bridge would not render the meter inoperative. Smith had admitted that to obtain a proper diversion of the current the bridge must be propeily fixed to the terminals. The mere fact of the bridge being there did not prove that current had been stolen. A manager was in charge of the shop in June, 1929, and that would account for the variation in the accounts. Wong was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. There was.no proof that Wong himseit tampered ' with the apparatus. On being bombarded with questions by Smith and his solicitor, he, as a Chinese, would easily say something he would not have said after consideration. “It doesn’t seem to be a matter for the slightest doubt,” said Mr. Tate. The effect of the removal of the bridge by Smith showed clearly that it was there for the purpose of stealing current, he added. The other two offences had been proved as well and Wong must be convicted on all charges. Counsel said the Borough Council asked that tho penalty should not be a lio-ht one. It was a very difficult offence to detect and the offender had the benefit of using free current. The only prospect the Borough Council had of o-etting anything out of it was by the Crown consenting to allow it part of the fine. „ Wong, who had a wife and four children. to°6upport in China, had been at Waitara for 15 years, pleaded his solicitor. Like other business people he was now finding it difficult to meet overhead expenses. He was behind with his rent. It was submitted that as a Chinese he had not a proper understanding of the position. He had been led astray by someone with a greater knowledge of electricity than he had. “If he were led astray by a European I would like to have the opportunity of dealing with that white man,” observed Mr. Talc- “It is a pity he is not here.” He emphasised that apart from the danger of amateurs tampering with electric apparatus, the general public had to be made to realise it was expensive to attempt to defraud a supplying authority.