1878/26 Tai Chong et al. vs. Maguire – non-payment of head tax due under Chinese Tax Act of 1878
As part of the Chinese Historical Wrongs Legacy Initiative, the BC Archives has digitized a selection of documents related to criminal prosecutions against the Chinese community from 1866 to 1914, found in GR-0419. These are mainly records created as part of the preliminary hearing held before a judge in order to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. There are often lengthy witness statements, and cross examinations by both prosecution and defense lawyers. The eventual verdict is sometimes recorded on the outside of the docket. They offer a fascinating glimpse into 19th and early 20th century criminal activity around the province, and ways in which the Chinese community was stereotyped. The records offered for transcription here are a small selection; for additional digitized material from GR-0419 click here.
*Please note that archival source materials are original historical documents that have not been censored, reviewed or otherwise altered by the Royal BC Museum. Some materials may contain content that is racist, sexist or otherwise offensive. In addition, GR-0419 records deal with subjects such as assault, murder and abuse, which may upset some readers. The Royal BC Museum is only the custodian of archival materials; the content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Royal BC Museum.
*All transcriptions are provided by volunteers, and the accuracy of the transcriptions is not guaranteed. Please be sure to verify the information by viewing the image record, or visiting the BC Archives in person.
Current Page Transcription [edit] [history]
that at the time of serving the notice Deft was selling sundy goods restrained belonging to the Plaintiff and others That the notice was read aloud to Deft (deffendant) the ? "You have ? late wheras the order" he proceeded with the sale that Deft (deffendant) sold certain ? (enumerated) after service of the notice, That about 10 minutes to 2 o'clock the Deft (deffendant) was served with the order That after such service the Deft (deffendant) received money in payment for goods which had been previously sold subsequent to the notice notice delivered several parcels of the goods to the purchasers. After the application for attachment for ? was served on Deft (defendant) dated the 28nd of Sept reciting the order and restraining him from selling or in any way dealing with goods of Plaintiff or parting with the proceed? ? the ? of Plaintiff