PLUNDERED.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18030, 19 January 1923, Page 6

PLUNDERED.

CHINESE COMPLAINS.

DEFENDANTS ACQUITTED.

Willie Young was very unhappy. The fact was that some person or persons had entered his fruit shop in Stafford Street, and after offering to “swap” a bicycle for some tomatoes, on going out, had helped himself or themselves to tomatoes. This occurrence led to a charge of theft being preferred against three men at the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M. The value of the vegetable plunder was set down at ss. Mr W. D. Campbell appeared for the defendants, and Senior Sergeant Fahey conducted the case for the Police. The first witness was Willie Young, and W. Lane acted as interpreter. On the interpreter being sworn, the _ witness took the oath in tho Oriental form, blowing out a lighted match and repeating in Chinese after the interpreter the oath: “As I have blown out this match, so shall my soul for ever dwell in darkness if I do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing hut the truth.” Willie Young then said that he was a fruiterer in Stafford Street. On December 8 last Willie’s premises were visited by the three defendants. _ After a prolonged argument with witness, tho interpreter said witness did not remember the time of night, but ho rang up the police. The three defendants were the men who entered tho shop. They were “kicking up a bit of a disturbance” outside, and one of tbe men wheeled in a bicycle and wanted to exchange it for fruit. The defendants did not buy any fruit, though they were in witness’s premises 15 minutes. Two of them helped themselves to tomatoes, however, on leaving the shop. These he valued at 6s or 7s. The Magistrate: A ease would not cost that. Witness further stated that one man also took cherries. The defendants left witness’s premises in a car though he did not see them arrive in one. Witness sold them no fruit in. bags. To Mr Campbell: There was only one assistant in tlie shop -when the men arrived. Tomatoes were 2s alb at the time. A policeman was in the shop when the men came in first, but they were quite friendly then. Ah Poy, an employee of the previous witness, ivas next called. The interpreter appeared to have great difficulty with tins witness, and after several lengthy debates, Mr Campbell inquired the reason for such “talks.” The interpreter said he had a difficult man to deal with as ho was a “new chum.” Information then came from the witness that he could not identity the defendants, and could only say that three men entered the shop with a bicycle and went out with fruit without paying night in question he was passing the shop of Willie Young and saw the three defendants there. It was then about 10 30 and witness’s attention was drawn to the shop by the defendant’s “skylarking. 1 ’ Defendants appeared to be buying fruit, while one was handling cabbago a«d cauliflower. Witness then went away. About 10 minutes afterwards witness returned and Willie Young complained to him about a theft of fruit. A oar was outside the shop when witness ivent tliero first, and it was away when ho returned. In evidence, one of the defendants said that on the night in question, w hilo on the way home, they had stop-

ped at Willie Young’s shop to buy fruit. Witness intended to purcliaso tomatoes. There wore two Chineso in tho shop when witness entered, and another came in from whom witness bought tomatoes. Witness sa.w nothing of a bicycle, and the only skylarking was the passing of jokes with tho Chinese about cabbage and cauliflower. Witness bought 2d worth of tomatoes, and deniod stealing fruit, or seeing any of the party do so. . , To Senior Sergeant Fahey: Defendant denied, tho evidence of the principal witness. , . . ~, , Another of the defendants stated that as he entered the shop ho saw two men leaving, one eating a tomato and arguing tho point” with one of the Chinese. At this point Sir Mosley said that ho did not wish to hear further evidence. It was recognised in New Zealand that foreigners should have the utmost protection from the law, and the Court, eo far as Chinese were concerned, cn-

deavoured to give substantial justice as in the ease of anybody else. He was satisfied that in this ease the shopkeopor had been mistaken. The defendants had satisfied him that thoix store was true, and the charge would accordingly dismissed.