COMPENSATION CLAIM

WITNESSES IN CHINA COMMISSION REFUSED An appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Herdman at Auckland dismissing a summons for leave to issuo a commission for the examination of witnesses in China was heard in the Court of Appeal todajv Tho case was one in which Thomas Wong Doo, merchant, of Auckland, suing under tho Deaths by Accident Compensation Act, 1908, as executor of the estate, of his brother, William Quoi (otherwise Wong Quoi), market gardener, of Auckland, deceased, claimed £2120 compensation from Kana Bhana, fruiterer, of Auckland, following Quoi's death from injuries received through being struck by a, motor-lorry. "The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) presided, and with him were Mr. Justice. Bced, Mr. Justice Mac- Gregor, "Mr. Justice Ostler,' and Mr. Justice Smith., Mr..L. P.'Leary appeared for the appellant,-and Mr. V. R. Meredith for the "respondent. Jii his judgment on the summons for :leave to issue the commission, Mr. Justice Herdman said that' the. proceedings had" been instituted to recover compensation for Quoi's .wife and.family who1 were living in China. As the case was to be heard by a jury it would be for tho jury to decide'whether or not witnesses testifying to vital issues relating to the validity of the marriage, the paternity of'the children, and. the dependency of all were worthy of credence. Quoi had been married twice, and any evidence in existence that tended to show that the first wife was dead should be investigated with the greatest care. It had been said, too. that polygamy was permissible in China, Bo that Quoi might have had niorc than one wife and more than one family. It followed, therefore, that there might be other claims for compensation if claims at that late hour could now be made. The whole of the circumstances in the case were so unusual and the necessity for strict iproof and careful cross-examination in the face of the jury was, he thought so obvious, that he felt justice could not bo done without insisting upon the personal attendance of witnesses. Mr. Leary submitted that the_ relevant facts could be best ascertained by the examination of the witnesses at Hong Kong, which was not far from the place whore the witnesses lived. The-dismissal of the summons was, he contended, tantamount,to putting such a load-of expense on the shoulders or. those prosecuting the action as to render it impossible for justice to be Mr. Justice Ostler pointed out that a marriage in a country where polygamy was practised was not recognised under British law. Mr Meredith submitted that the respondent was entitled to have the witnesses brought to New Zealand so that they could be eross-.exanuned. He stressed the point that in view of the deceased's occupation and advanced age his. widow and family could not have expected very much from him, and their pecuniary loss was therefore but slight. (Proceeding.) Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 86, 9 October 1933, Page 9