Murder at the Diggings: Part Two - Suspicion Falls on the Chinese Community
Given the anti-Chinese sentiment, it is perhaps not surprising that suspicion would fall their way
Part Two of a multi-part series about the murder of Mary Young and what ensued afterwards. If you would like to start at the beginning, here is Part One:
All Eyes on the Chinese
The Inquest into the death of Mary Young began on 6 August 1880. Testimony emerging from the Inquest, although not unequivocal, was pointing towards Mary's attacker or attackers being Chinese. It is very likely that Anti-Chinese sentiment within the community also contributed to this becoming the predominant viewpoint. Many Europeans looked upon the Chinese with suspicion. It is worth digressing slightly for a little context.
Anti-Chinese Sentiment
In the 1870’s - 1880’s about one quarter of mining applications were by Chinese miners who operated largely as a parallel community to the European miners working in neighbouring claims1.
Although Chinese miners had been welcomed when there was a shortage of labour, anti-Chinese prejudice soon resurfaced. By 1871 there were calls for Chinese immigration to be restricted. By 1881, employment on the goldfields was dwindling and anti-Chinese prejudice had intensified. There were calls for Chinese immigration to be restricted and, in 1881, this anti-Chinese sentiment became apparent in New Zealand legislation.
In 1881 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Chinese Immigrants Act. In doing so, New Zealand was following Canada and the Australian colonies who had passed similar legislation. The New Zealand Chinese Immigration Act singled out Chinese immigrants by imposing a poll tax on those who entered the country and limited the number that could enter.
Initially, there was a £10 poll tax on each Chinese immigrant (equivalent to around NZ$2000 today) with only one Chinese passenger allowed for every 10 tons of cargo. These figures were raised in 1896 to a poll tax of £100 (equivalent to NZ$20,000 today) and one passenger for every 200 tons of cargo.
In 1907 a reading test in English was imposed for Chinese immigrants.
Further restrictions on Chinese migration and residency in the 1920s rendered the poll tax largely inoperative, and it was waived from 1934. However, the legislation was not repealed until 1944. In 2002 the New Zealand government officially apologised to the Chinese community for the injustice of the poll tax2.
Following the Government’s apology in 2002, a consultation process was undertaken to find a form of reconciliation appropriate to the descendants of Poll Tax payers. The community response was that government should celebrate Chinese New Zealanders’ cultural heritage and recognise their contribution to New Zealand society.
This led to the setting up of the Chinese Poll Tax Heritage Deed Trust in 2004; a community trust with a government seeding grant of NZ$5 million. The role of the Trust is to fund projects which encourage understanding of the history of the Chinese in New Zealand and to promote public awareness of ethnic diversity. The trustees are all direct descendants of Poll Tax payers3.
Anyway … Back to 1880 …
Inquest Testimony
When Mary was found she was having difficulty speaking. Depositions at the Inquest into her death reveal that, when asked who had hurt her, she managed to tell both Lee Guy (the first to find her injured) and Alexander McHardy (the second person) what sounded to each of them like “Bad men”. Neither of them could get more detail from her. Alexander said that Mary didn’t say whether her attacker, or attackers, were Chinese or English.
Margaret Forgie’s testimony was more specific. Margaret deposed:
"Mrs McCarthy came in presently. In her presence I leaned over Mrs Young and said:
'Tell me who done it'.I said'was it chinamen' She distinctly said'Yes'.I then said'Was it Englishmen?'and she said'No'. I then went out and called Lee Guy and told him that she said it was a Chinamen that had done it to her. He began to cry and said Chinamen would kill him. Mrs McCarthy came with me while I was speaking to Lee Guy ... [and then] went away and I returned into Mrs Young's house. I asked her again'was it Chinamen'and she said'Yes'.I also asked her if it was Englishmen and she said"No"... I believe she understood my questions because she answered the same way the second time. No one else was present when I questioned her the second time.
Margaret’s testimony was backed up by Margaret McCarthy who said:
"Mrs Forgie said to her '
Mrs Young who has done it? Was it chinamen'She answered 'Yes'.Mrs Forgie then said 'Mrs Young has it been Englishmen?'She answered 'No'.I then went out and called Lee Guy. I said'Lee Guy chinamen Kill-um Mrs Young'.Lee Guy began to cry and said'Killee me too'... It is my belief that Mrs Young knew Mrs Forgie when she was asking the questions. I am sure she understood but she was gradually sinking"
Margaret Forgie and Margaret McCarthy each arrived at the house at about the same time as each other, momentarily after William Parker arrived. According to his testimony at the Inquest, he arrived there at about 8:45am. That was at least an hour after Lee Guy and Alexander McHardy had spoken to Mary, more than an hour in the case of Lee Guy. There is some room for doubt about whether Mary was capable of saying anything intelligible by the time the two Margaret’s reached her. Did they hear what they thought they heard?
Notwithstanding this, Margaret’s testimony was given credence at the Inquest (and carried through to later hearings)4.
The Coroner was certainly convinced. In his letter to the Minister of Justice on 12 August 1880, the day after the Inquest concluded, he said:
“ … I may observe that while the evidence is not so definite as to fasten the guilt upon any individuals there can be scarcely a doubt that the murder was committed by Chinese. The poor woman when questioned whether it was Chinese or English that had done it managed to murmer "yes" to the first query and "no" to the second, and the women who asked her are very sure that she understood as as she answered in the same way on the questions being repeated after a short interval …”
Images and transcriptions of official papers relating to the Inquest into Mary’s death can be found here
Arrests on Suspicion of Murder
The police’s attention was firmly focused on the Chinese community in the area from the beginning. Two people were arrested on suspicion of murdering Mary Young during the first day of the Inquest (6 August 1880) - Chee Fong and Lew Ting. They were in Court for the 2nd day of the Inquest (7 August 1880).
Shortly after three more Chinese men were arrested - Ah Keen (also known as Ah Ki, Ah Kin, and Ah Gen), Ah Ting (also known as Ah Ti) and Ah Lee (also known as Lee Ton.
According to testimony from Lee Guy on the final day of the Inquest: Chee Fong lived about a mile from Mary Young's house; Lew Ting lived about two miles from Mary's house, and Ah Keen and Ah Ting lived together not quite half a mile from Mary's house. Why these men were singled out is uncertain other than the fact they lived in the area. The Police don’t appear to have had any evidence against them.
The fifth man, Ah Lee, lived about 18km away from Mary’s house at Coal Pit Gully near Naseby. He was known to visit the Diggings on occasion and was a relative of Lee Guy. Lee Guy was one of Mary Young’s nearest neighbours. It was Lee Guy who had initially found Mary injured in her home on the day of her death and alerted other members of the community.
After Mary’s death, William Parker had made it his business to get close to Lee Guy. In doing so, it was his intention to pump him for information about the Chinese community. He wanted to find clues that he could report back to Police Sergeant Morton. In the course of one conversation, Lee Guy had commented that Ah Lee was 'a suspicious character'. This is likely what prompted his arrest.
Ah Lee was the last of the five suspects to be arrested. He was taken to Naseby Gaol where the other Chinese prisoners were already in custody.
All five suspects were in the Coroner’s Court for the final day of the Inquest. Chee Fong and Lew Ting had legal representation. It appears that the others didn’t. While they understood a smattering of English, it is likely that most of the proceedings passed them by without being fully understood.
Ah Lee later made a voluntary statement that implicated Lee Guy. More about that later.
Reward Posted - 18 August 1880
Although the evidence at the Inquest into Mary death was pointing towards a Chinese murderer, or murderers, it had been difficult to satisfactorily make enquiries within the Chinese community. The Jury returned an open verdict - murder by person or persons unknown, along with a recommendation that the Government offer a substantial reward to anyone not actually the murderer who may give information leading to a conviction.
While at this stage, the Police had five Chinese men in custody on suspicion of murder, there was insufficient evidence to charge any one of them with the murder.
“… Five Chinamen are now in Custody on suspicion but there is a strong opinion that though some of these may have been more or less accessory to the crime the real principal offender has not been found. It is extremely difficult to get reliable evidence out of the Chinese especially against their own countrymen and I fear that without the expectation of reward they will not afford any information …” [Coroner to Minister of Justice 12 August 1880]
The Government agreed to a reward being offered. On 17 August 1880, H.E. Reader, the Commissioner of Police in Wellington, issued an instruction to Superintendent Weldon in the Dunedin office to offer a Reward for information. The telegraph reads:
"NEW ZEALAND TELEGRAPH
17 August 1880
To Sup't Weldon Dunedin
Offer a reward of one hundred pounds at once for such information as shall lead to the conviction of the guilty party in the Kyeburn murder and put my name to it. The Governor not decided yet about granting free pardon.
H.E. Reader Commission'r"5
This was promptly actioned by Superintendent Weldon who responded on 21 August to confirm action had been taken and that reward notices had been distributed - an English and a Chinese version.
The reward notices were posted on 18 August 1880 and proved to be controversial as you will find out in Part Three …
The information in this post is drawn from my one-place study - Kyeburn Diggings One-Place Study on the WeAre.xyz platform.
Most of this information has come from:
‘Poll tax imposed on Chinese 5 July 1881’ from New Zealand History Nga korero a ipurangi o Aotearoa [Website]
Some has come from:
‘Page 3. Later Settlement’ from Te Ara The Encyclopedia of New Zealand [Website]
‘Chinese Poll Tax’ from Ministry for Ethnic Affairs Te Tari Mātāwaka [Website] -
Notice of Evidence - Supreme Court - Justice Department Papers transferred to Archives New Zealand in 1983 - Archives NZ - Item Code: R24386581 - Box number: 279 - Record number: 1880/4972. See Images R24386581-0103 to 0156
Copy obtained from the Archives New Zealand by Jane Chapman (15 January 2025) - Item Code: R20119946 1881 2014 Wellington Repository. Official papers relating to the offer of a reward and pardon can be found here.
More to come and it gets worse.
Oh you really have me intrigued. Great writing Jane, I look forward to Part three.