Stories from Deli

Tjonk Koeng Tat bioscoop opened in July 1920 on Cantonstraat, managed by Mr Van Kaathoven

Declared bankrupt
This morning the Council of Justice bankruptcy in Medan, known as Mr. Tjong Koen Tat alias Tjong Li Hiong, a son of the former Major of the Chinese, Tjong Young Hian. The bankrupt had lost a lawsuit but failed to pay the legal costs to be paid at NLG 700, with whatever amount the winning party would be taxed, which therefore decided to file for bankruptcy  questions. It is known that the now bankrupt in countless processes have been involved through which various banks receivables from almost got a million on him. 04-03-1932

A bankruptcy case THE CASE TJONG KOENG TAT.
Recently we reported the bankruptcy of Mr. Tjong Koeng Tat, a son of the late Major of the Chinese in Medan, Mr. Tjong Jong Jian. Following our report, we received a visit from Mrs. Tjong Koeng Tat, who gave us the following explanation of the case:

In February 1925 I moved into our empty family home (the so-called roemah aboe) on Kebon Boenga, at the grave of the late Major Tjong Jong Hian in Parkstraat belonging to Mr. Tjong Koeng Whie. In the afternoon of August 26, 1930, a lawyer appeared at my house, accompanied by two bailiffs with an order to seize the household effects in this house. They informed me, that the furniture belonged to Mr. Tjong Koeng Whie, who owed money to a trader here on the spot. I replied that they were wrong since ‘I was Mrs. Tjong Koeng Tat and not Mrs. Tjong Koeng Whie, and that

But the lawyer said that he was sorry, but that I had to allow the bailiffs to seize all my property, and that I could then oppose the Council of Justice. The lawyer also asked me who the head of our family was when the brothers (including my husband) were in China.

I replied that the former consul, Mr. Chang Pu Ching, was the eldest brother and therefore the head of the family. The lawyer informed Mr. Cliang Pu Ching by telephone of the seizure, and so did I, in the evening of the same day.

The next day he sent his private secretary, Mr. Goon Coon Lee, to take me to my attorney, to whom I informed that all the household effects, etc., were in my house, and that all the flower pots and cars were family property. I also requested my attorney to handle the case on my behalf, but I said that, since I am legally married, I had to litigate under the name of my husband, Tjong Koeng Tat.

I also informed my lawyer that most of the objects had been purchased from NV Tiong Hoah and from the firm Palm & Co., and that the precious books were largely part of my parents’ dowry, which collection I occasionally while the expensive curios and china were gifts from my parents in Penang.

My lawyer was able to stop the auction, which would take place three days after the seizure. After that, I did not hear about the case again until Mr. Goon Coon Lee informed me a few months later that he had received word from my attorney’s deputy, who was on leave at the time, that I still had to pay additional costs. .

One day in October, 1931, I was requested to appear at the office of my attorney’s deputy, where he asked me for all the details of this matter, as he was not fully informed, while he also asked me if I could witness who could declare that all objects were indeed my property. Three witnesses were invited to court, including the former attorney of Mr. Tjong Koeng Tat. This agent asked the court for a permit to inspect my household effects, etc. in the house. He then declared before the court under oath that the contents were indeed mine. I also sent my two servants, who have been with our Tamil family for a long time and who had helped during the relocation from Sjanghalstraat to the so-called ‘roemah baboe’. they were not needed, because the three chief witnesses were sufficient.

He told them to inform me that my case was favorable. Then on October 18, 1931, I took the “Kedah” from Medan to Penang, and from there to Singapore and Hongkeng, to finally take a trip to Swatow. As I had not received any message from my attorney’s deputy, I was somewhat concerned. Therefore, in November 1931, I wrote to him that I was in Swatow, stating my address, requesting that if my presence was required, I would be telegraphed . Should he require any information of a minor nature, he could contact three persons in Medan, including the former agent of Mr. Tjong Koeng Tat. I intended to stay in Swatow for a month, but as I became seriously ill I had to stay at Swatow until January 26, 1932. That’s how I came last month.

February 13, 1932, returned to Medan for the first time. On my return home, I was most painfully surprised to find the whole house empty, without a single chair to sit on or a bed for both my children. I was told that the dealer to whom Mr. Tjong Koeng Whie – not Tjong Koeng Tat – owed money, all my fine furniture, valuable books.

SP 18-03-1932

—– Jl. Friday morning the Medansche heals
Judicial Council rendered judgment in the civil action for property rights of a strip of land the size of forty thousand square meters, whichever lawsuit pending by the Municipality was made against the widow of the late Mr. Tjong Jong Hian, a brother of the former major of the Chinese Zen at Medan, the late Mr. Tjong A Fie. The progress of the church was in its entirely allowed.
According to the Dcli Crt. it was all about it unencumbered ownership of a strip land, located ‘south of the distant
lengde Parkstraat in the vicinity of the grave of Mr. Tjong Jong Hian, that you enter behind the Chinese gate
Kebon Boenga can reach. Mrs Tjong now has to hit the ground Municipality, but still has three months to pass the sentence appeal.
Initially zov; the Council of Justice already on March 10 last judgment, but this matter turned out to be so complicated that the affair was then postponed for five weeks.
The judgment now rendered then contains also no less than 91 typewritten pages sides.

• 18-04-1939

Council of Justice ruled there civil proceedings between the municipality of Medan and the widow of the late Lord
Tjong Jong Hian to not have ownership of it a piece of land the size of 40,000 m2.
The municipality was vindicated.

• April 15, 1939