CHINESE PUZZLE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20295, 3 May 1934, Page 11

CHINESE PUZZLE.

Fruiterers at Law Over Loans. A MUCH-PAWNED RING. A Chinese puzzle in which two brothers-in-law were the litigants was heard in the Civil Court by Mr H. A. Young. S.M., this morning. Chang Chew Chong, of Stafford Street, Timaru (Mr J. N. Smith), proceeded against Jarm She Shun, of 52, London Street, Lyttelton, a fruiterer (Dr Ilaslam) for the recovery of £3B 15s, alleging that the sum was made up of the interest and principal of two loans made by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff stated that, on November 8, 1932, and January 6, 1933, he lent defendant £2O and £ls, payable on demand, at a reasonable rate of interest. Verbal and written demands for payment. had failed. He assessed the interest at £3 15s.

Judgment was given for plaintiff. A deaf witness added to the natural difficulties of the case, and Mr Smith conversed with his client, Chang Chew Chong, in broken English. The Chinese witnesses did not swear in the usual manner, with a match, but on the Bible. Mr Smith said that Chong was known in business as Chew Lee, and Jarm was known as Tom. The Magistrate: We had better call them Chew Lee and Tom, then. Plaintiff, continued counsel, had lived in New Zealand for twenty-five years. The Chinese woman in Court was plaintiff’s wife and defendant’s sister. Chew Lee, who had a business in Christchurch, sold out and joined his brother at Lyttelton. Tom was short of cash in November, 1932, and Chong borrowed £2O from a Mr Green. Tom’s business was precarious, as he relied on a contract with the Union Steam -Ship Company. Another loan was made of £ls. Loans Not Admitted. “ I understand the £2O is admitted, but not as a loan,” continued counsel. “It is suggested that the- sister is mixed up in some manner, and that the £2O was paid for her purposes. She came to New Zealand in October, 1932, on money from Chew Lee, but this has been paid back. The loan of £ls is not admitted. Mrs Chew Lee has at no time lived with plaintiff.” Chew Lee said that defendant was his brother, and he (witness) had paid Tom money to bring his wife out from China. This had been paid back. Before November, 1932, he had been in business in Christchurch, but had sold out and gone to live with his brother at Lyttelton. When his brother wanted a loan, he borrowed £2O from Mr Green and paid it to him to buy some fruit. There was nothing in writing, for he had previously trusted his brother. A note was made out in Chinese agreeing to £3 15s interest on the loan. Witness again wanted money to pay his market bill. He pawned his diamond ring and got £ls for it, continued witness. He sent two letters in Chinese asking for repayment, and said he would take legal action in fourteen days if nothing were done. To Dr Ilaslam, Chew Lee said he had not yet paid the £2O to Mr Green. A Wife in China Also. Counsel: You have got another wife in China? —Yes. And a son?—Yes. Did you marry Mrs Chew Lee, this lady here, in China? —Yes. You’ve had some trips to China? Twice time. When did she come out? —After the second time. Did you send her money to keep the boy?—Yes. Did she want more? —Yes. Didn’t you give this £2O to Tom to send to his mother inf China? —No, to buv fruit. Did Tom tell you if he sent the money home to China? —I don’t know. Where did you get this diamond ring?—This diamond ring my diamond ring. Did you give it to Mrs Chew Lee? No. I paid £26 for it. I always wore it. It was a gentleman’s ring. Witness said that Mrs Chew Lee got the ring out of pawn and Tom kept it. “No Give Back.” “ Why did you give her the ticket on the ring? ” asked counsel. —To pay the interest. He keep the ring and no give back. To Mr Smith, Chang said he had two boys. The one in China was the son of another wife. The Defence. “ Tom’s story is that the £2O w a s sent to China for the support of Chew Lee’s mother and wife,” said Dr Haslam. ‘‘ The money was given to Tom to be sent to China. The £ls has never been received. The diamond ring belonged to Mrs Chew Lee, who gave it to her husband to pawn on his arrival in New Zealand, if he wanted money. The ring was returned to her, and was given by her to Tom to pawn for business money.” Mrs Chew Lee produced two rings for Dr Ilaslam to inspect. ‘‘ One man ring, one lady,” she said. With the £2O she received from her husband, she got a bank draft to send the money to China as a Christmas present, continued witness. Chew Lee had got the ring out of pawn and returned it to her. Tom pawned the ring again to pay for tomatoes, and paid £l7 to get it back. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the full amount, with costs.