Difference between revisions of ".MTQ1.MTY1MzM"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The defendant is the Collector of Chinese Taxes | The defendant is the Collector of Chinese Taxes | ||
| − | appointed by the ? pursuant to | + | appointed by the [?] pursuant to |
| − | the ? of the Chinese Tax Act 1878 | + | the [?] of the Chinese Tax Act 1878 |
seized the Plaintiff as well as other | seized the Plaintiff as well as other | ||
Chinese persons goods | Chinese persons goods | ||
Soon after the seizures the Defendant | Soon after the seizures the Defendant | ||
| − | was served with writ ? | + | was served with writ [?] at the |
| − | ? of Plaintiff and other Chinese persons | + | [?] of Plaintiff and other Chinese persons |
| − | ? were served on the 19th Sept | + | [?] were served on the 19th Sept |
| − | and were indorsed (pursuant to the ? | + | and were indorsed (pursuant to the [?] |
| − | of the ? 1854) with notice | + | of the [?] 1854) with notice |
| − | that ? would be applied for | + | that [?] would be applied for |
restraining the Plaintiff from selling the | restraining the Plaintiff from selling the | ||
goods so seized | goods so seized | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
On the 23rd day of Sept (the day of sale) | On the 23rd day of Sept (the day of sale) | ||
the Plaintiff Consul applied for an | the Plaintiff Consul applied for an | ||
| − | Infimetion? | + | [Infimetion?] |
The application was based upon | The application was based upon | ||
Latest revision as of 07:02, 6 May 2024
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Tai Chong Plaintiff vs John Maquire Defendant
Brief for Council to approve motion for [?] of Defendant
The defendant is the Collector of Chinese Taxes
appointed by the [?] pursuant to
the [?] of the Chinese Tax Act 1878 seized the Plaintiff as well as other Chinese persons goods
Soon after the seizures the Defendant was served with writ [?] at the [?] of Plaintiff and other Chinese persons [?] were served on the 19th Sept and were indorsed (pursuant to the [?] of the [?] 1854) with notice that [?] would be applied for restraining the Plaintiff from selling the goods so seized
On the 23rd day of Sept (the day of sale) the Plaintiff Consul applied for an [Infimetion?]
The application was based upon affidavit of Plaintiff and others to the effect that their goods had been seized and alleging that the seizure was illegal as the ax act was against public policy and a further affidavit that notice of sale had been given for the 26th and that the sale was being proceeded with on the 28rd,
