SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 2 August 1935, Page 11

SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT

DIFFICULTY OVER PAPERS UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENTS. CLAIM AGAINST CHINESE. ■k ■ ' Unexpected developments in the case and the need for consideration of papers and business books contained in a box hitherto unproduced in court caused the magistrate, Mr. W. H. Woodward, at New Plymouth to adjourn sine die a claim of five persons or firms against Joe Wai, Chinese fruiterer, Palmerston North. The original hearing of the claim was early in May, when an adjournment to consider a non-suit application by counsel for Joe Joy, erne of the defendants, was taken. When the hearing was resumed on Wednesday the application was granted and the claim against Wai proceeded, the hearing occupying most of the past two days. Wai disputed the claim on the grounds that he was not, as suggested, a partner in the business of Y. D. Shack at Stratford, to which firm the goods were supplied. The claims against Wai were by G. O. McCutcheon and Co. Ltd. ' (Hastings), £2B 12s; Turner’s Supply Co. Ltd. (Audk- | land), 10s 9d; James Parnell, nurseryman . (Wanganui), £l9 9s 9d; Bhana Unka, fruiterer (Stratford), £6 12s 3d; L. B. * Webster, auctioneer (New Plymouth), £7 7s 6d. J The unexpected developments yesterday occurred on resumption after lunch, when Mr. Woodward, by ® court order, brought Joe Joy in as witness. Joy gave evidence and mentioned that a box of Shack’s papers, taken from tha Stratford shop after Shack left it in March, 1934, was still at his shop.. The box was produced and proved to contain books written in Chinese characters. To ascertain the contents Mr. Woodward adjourned the hearing. • Mr. R. J- Brokenshire appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. W. Middleton for Wai. i RELATIONS WITH SHACK. Wai was cross-examined yesterday morning by Mr. Brokenshire. He admitted having known Shack for some time, but denied that he had ever employed him. He was not related to either Shack or Joe Joy and he had not asked a \ commercial traveller about the businesses at New Plymouth and Stratford. He was not in close touch with Joe C-haam, his brother, and knew nothing of his financial position. All he knew was that Chaam had gone to China, though Wai had no: given him any financial assistance. He had not taken the books of the Stratford business with him to Palmerston North for examination—they were nothing to do with him. He had not suggested to Shack that the latter should accept £2 10s a week, instead of £3. He had been asked by travellers if he; had any interest in Shack’s business, but he had answered no. He had told travellers,, including Blinkhorn, that Shack, if he paid for goods, would be all right. He ' remembered telling Blinkhorn that if Shack did not pay it was wise not to trust him with too much credit. It was not his practice to issue warnings against his countrymen. He had not, when looking over Shack’s accounts, put his personal seal with his signature, said Wai. To do that would immediately stamp him as a partner in the business. The signature in the, book had not, therefore, been meant to be authentic. He denied the suggestion that he had been a partner of Shack’s after June, 1933, and defined a partner as one contributing capital and time to a business. The business had never been offered to Joe Joy and himself by. Shack and so far as he knew had not been offered to any other party. Henry Chong, interpreter, gave evidence on the characters in Shack's account book. It was impossible to swear, he said, that a line alongside an amount of £79 could be translated as “Wai’s share of losses.” The character of the first word was the one in doubt. < IMPORTANCE OF BOOKS.

-When the court resumed after lunch the magistrate immediately mentioned to; Mr. Middleton that in view of the importance of the account books testified by Wai to have been written by him at Shack’s dictation, .and of the fact that Shack in his evidence on commission had said that he had taken no books away from Stratford, it would be a matter of unfavourable comment to Joe Wai’s case if Joe Joy were not called. A legal discussion ensued, Mr.’ Middleton arguing that it would be unfair and prejudicial to his case if Joy, who had not been called by either side, were cross-examined on other aspects. The magistrate at length decided to call Joy, Mr. Brokenshire mentioning that owing to defendant’s witnesses having left it would be unfair to cross-examine on other aspects than the books. ( Joe Joy, placed in the box, appealed for Chong, the interpreter, saying he could not understand English, and to several questions by the magistrate he shook a vigorous head and said: “I don't know anything; I no understand.” “You understand very well, Joy,"’ said Mr. Woodward warmly. “I have had long conversations with you before and you understand English very well. Now answer my questions.” Joy replied that he went to Stratford, after Shack’s disappearance, with Mr. C. E. Monaghan, his solicitor, but he saw nothing, heard nothing and took nothing after gaining access to the shop. He spoke in broken English, using the word “see” several times and protested that he knew nothing of the affairs. The magistrate showed Joy some yellow receipts and other papers. “Where did these come from?” he asked.

“Monaghan, he give them to me,” said Joy. “The papers came from the box. The box is an old apple box, and it is still under the counter of my shop. You can see them if you want to.” Joy told Mr. Brokenshire that he did not know what the box contained. To the suggestion by the magistrate that Joy should write a note to the white boy in charge of his shop, asking him to give to a bearer the box of papers, Joy protested that he Could not write English, and he asked to go himself.' The magistrate refused the request, and Joe plaintively f mentioned that he could sign his name in English. A note to the boy “Harry” in charge of the shop was thereupon written by Mr. Middleton and signed by Joy, and the Court adjourned until the return of the box.

When the box, a- ordinary apple box, was brought to Court it was found to contain bank and receipt books in English, and business. books in Chinese script. Two business books were dated 1932.

“The books should have been the property of the official assignee,” said Mr. Woodward.” At present I cannot come to a decision on any point of the case until I have some knowledge of what the box Contains. I cannot give judgment or reserve my decision, and ’I shall have to adjourn the case sine die.” «