Difference between revisions of ".MTQ1.MTY1MzM"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Brief for Council to approve motion for [?] of Defendant | Brief for Council to approve motion for [?] of Defendant | ||
| − | The defendant is the Collector of Chinese | + | 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 ? 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, | ||
Revision as of 06:11, 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 ? 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,
