WALSH V. WAH LEE.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 16152, 29 November 1924, Page 5

WALSH V. WAH LEE.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DETENTION. INTERESTING EVIDENCE. (By Telegraph—Special to Times.) AUCKLAND, Saturday. The case in the Supreme Court, Auckland, in which John William Walsh (Mr Anderson), estate agent, of Hamilton, proceeded against Wah Lee (Messrs' Dickson and Munro), of Buckland, claiming $443 11s 3d, was continued yesterday afternoon, before his Honor Mr Justice Stringer. The facts were as outlined yesterday. Under cross-examination, plaintiff said he had always looked to Wah Lee for the money, and not to anybody else. He understood that Wong Bak Sheung was a nephew of Wong How Qhee, hut he could not say he was the next-of-kin in New Zeeland- S.q far as be knew, Wong Wai was a nephew, as well as a partner with Wong How Chee.

motion for « Nonsuit Mr Dickson moved that the plaintiff be nonsuited. Walsh, he said, had not taken out letters of administration, nor was he the executor. ■ His Honor said that was immaterial. Walsh had handed over the money with a mandate to Wah Lee to, do certain things, and if they did not carry out the mandate plaintiff was entitled to. recover. Mr Dickson submitted that Walsh was executor de son tort—that is to say, he had only responsibilities and no rights. His Honor: He is suing not as executor, but as J. W. Walsh. His Honor said he would reserve the points. Mr Dickson said that if the money were handed over now to the. Plaintiff the widow oould sue Wah Lee. Mr Anderson: Pay it to the widow; we shall be satisfled-

Mr Dickson, proceeding, said the money was paid to Wah Lee as banker or agent, to be used at the direction of Wong Bak Sheung.

His Honor: And who, according to the answers to your interrogatories, to use a slang phrase, has “collared the most of it." Mr Diokgon said that because It had been “ooUared” by Wong Bak Sheung plaintiff was trying to fall back on Wah Lee, because they had money. Evidence Given hy Chinese.

Wong Wai stated that he received his share of the partnership estate from Wah Lee.

Gin Sing Fong, late secretary of the Chinese Masonic Society, said the meeting in October, 1020, was called by Wong Bak Sheung. Witness knew nothing about the money. Rang Yen, a partner in the firm of Wah Lee, stated that he was present at the meeting in October, 1920, called by Wong Bak Sheung. Asked if the £1025 was handed to his brother, Kuk Yen, witness replied: “I think so,” and then added, “I forget.” Witness, continuing, said the money was placed with his brother, to give to Wong Bak Sheung to send to China. The firm of Wah Lee acted, as bankers for the Chinese. Wong Bak Sheung stated that Wong Wal was not so nearly related to the deceased as witness was. At the meeting of the society, Walsh wrote a cheque and handed it ‘ to hipa and he (witness) called to Kuk Yen, partner to Dang Yen. Kuk Yen was to pay the debts of tbe deceased and send the rest to the widow and son in China. In addition to the £l5O witness had sent other sums to China.

Mr Anderson said, the widow had acknowledged £l5O altogether. Witness said he held back some of the money because he understood deceased’s son was coming to New Zealand. He thought he had about £2OO left, but did not know where the money was. In the meantime he had spent it. His Honor said that if the money had been spent it was the widow’s loss. The question was: Who paid over the money originally, and who had the distribution of it?

Upon Mr Dickson stating that Kuk Yen was too ill to attend, his Honor adjourned the case until Monday. Judge Reserves Decision.

His Honor, without calling upon Mr Anderson to address the Court, said that plaintiff, being in possession of £1025 16s lOd, paid it to defendants, who accepted it and undertook to do certain things with it. That was not the estate of the deceased; it was the joint realisation of the partners’ property, and was handed, according to the evidence, to Wah Lee to pay out Wong Will’s share, and send, the other to the widow. He could not speak definitely until the other evidence was given, but assuming that proved, it was not a question of Walsh being executor at all. It was a case of principal and agent It seemed to his Honor that the action was well foundc.d, if established on faot, but he would reserve his docision till he had heard the other evidence.