CHINESE AT LAW.

SECRET TONG  INVOLVED. PROCEEDS OP AN ESTATE. MONEY FOR WIDOW IN CHINA. 'kn aileemtion of irregular dealing Wt h trust money was involved in a claim for £3 11/5 made by John W- Walsh, agent, of Hamilton, against Wah Lee a Chinese merchant, of Auckland which came before Justice Mr. Anderson re Dickson the defendant. 'In opening. Mr. Anderson said that plaintiff had for many years done business  the Chinese of the China the influenza epidemic of 1920 £ vsited in hospital a market gardener of Hamilton, one How Chee. who asked m if, in the event of How thees death, would realise on How Chees estate S forward the proceeds to How Chee s Sow and son in China. How Chee died, and plaintiff look ...hand Hie realisation of his estate, consisting of a market garden property partnership ™i,h Wang Hai. There was great difficulty in realisation, ami the services of a Chinese society, really a sort of Masonic Society of Chinese, was enlisted. Both How Chee and Wang Hai having been members of the Order. Eventually ,in October. 1920. the estate was realised on and plaintiff gave his cheque for £102.5 16/10. of which £033 11/-". was the late How Chee's share, and was to be E cnt to the widow in China. On account 0 f the disturbed condition of China at that time it was decided to send tho cash through the firm of Wah Lee which had representatives in China. Wah Lee undertook the commission, and received the money. Later plaintiff heard that the widow had not received the cash. end made inquiries from Wah Lee who said £150 had been sent to the widow and an amount to a Chinese in New Zealand named Bak Sliding. He protested about this and. after visiting China and learning from the widow that £150 was all she had received, he took the present action as trustee in the estate of How Chee. John W. Walsh gave evidence to the above effect. In reply to Mr. Dickson, witness stated that all that he personally got out of the transaction was £5O, which went to his firm as commission. He understood that Bak Sheung was a nephew of How Chee. but could not say that he was How dice's nearest nextof-kin in New Zealand. So far as witness knew. Wang Hai was a nephew as well as partner of How Chee. The proceeds of the estate were to go to the j widow and son of How Chee, not to the widow and nearest kin in Xew Zealand. The money was not handed to the Chinese Masonic Society and passed by, the society Wah Lee as banker in j trust for' the widow in China and j nearest kin in New Zealand. j To Mr. Anderson, witness said it was I not till 1923 that he discovered the j money had not been sent to the widow. A Nonsuit Point. j Mr. Dickson raised as nonsuit points i that plaintiff had no letters of adminis- j tration, and that he had no rights as! trustee. If defendant paid the money to plaintiff, said counsel, and plaintiff happened to lose it before paying it tv the widow, then the widow could come i on defendant for the money again. His Honor remarked that the position appeared to him that Wah Leehad undertaken a contract, which plaintiff; was entitled to hold him to. However,' he would reserve the nonsuit points. Mr. Dickson stated that his client's case was that the money had been obtained, through the Masonic Society, by Bak .Sheung. Counsel held that as Bak .Sheung probably had no money, the plaintiff had taken action against Wah Lee as a man of substance. Wong Hai stated in evidence that he received his share of the partnership estate from Wah Lee Dang Yen, partner in the firm of Wah Lee said he was present at the meeting in October. 1020. called by Wong Bak Sheung. Witness said he thought £1025 was handed to Kuk Yen, his brother. He forgot whether it was so or not. The money was placed with his brother to give to Wong Bak Sheung, to send to China. The firm of Wah Lee acted ts bankers. Wong Bak Sheung deposed that Wong Hai was not as near a relative of deceased as he (witnessl was. At the meeting referred to above Walsh wrote cheque and handed it to witness. Wit- Bess called to Kuk Yen. who was to nay the debts of deceased and send the rest to the widow- and son in China. In addition to the £150, witness had sent other iums to China, viz., £30. and £.50. The widow had acknowledged £150, said Mr. Anderson. Had Spent the Money. Witness thought deceased's' son was coming to New Zealand, and he held back some of the money on that account. I He thought there would be about £200 left, but he did not know where it was. Witness said he had not got the money now—he had spent it. If the money had been spent, it was the widow's loss, said Mr. .lustice Stringer. The question was, who paid over the money in the first place, and who wa sresponsible for its distribution Mr. Dickson stated that Kuk Yen, the man alleged to have received the money, was too unwell to attend the Court. His Honor adjourned the case till 9 a.m. on Monday. His Honor said that he could not apeak definitely till he had heard Kuk Yen's evidence, but, assuming that the joint realisation of the partner's property was handed to Wah Lee to pay out Wong Hai's share and send the money to the widow, it was not a question of Walsh being executor at all. It was a case of principal and agent. If established on fact, it seemed that tho action was well founded. Decision would be reserved till the other evidence had been heard. Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 284, 29 November 1924, Page 13