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*Please note that archival source materials are original historical documents that have not been censored, reviewed or otherwise altered by the Royal BC Museum.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]
Yours &c In the Supreme Court of British Columbia The fourteenth day of November A.D. 1878 Victoria to[?] The Plaintiff [person's name Lee] by Robert Edwin Jackson his Attorney sues the defendant John Maguire for that the defendant converted to his own use and wrongfully deprived the Plaintiff of the use and possession of the Plaintiff's goods that is to say one [?]. And the Plaintiff further sues the defendant for that the defendant broke and entered the dwelling house belonging to the Plaintiff and continued and stayed therein for the space of one day making great noise and disturbance therein and greatly disturbed and disquieted the Plaintiff in the possession and enjoyment of the said dwelling house and then also with force and arms took and seized divers goods and chattels to wit one chest of tea then being in the said dwelling house and in certain parts thereof then used as a shop by the Plaintiff in his trade and business of a merchant and which said goods and chattels then were part of the stock in trade of the Plaintiff in the way of his trade and business and of great value to wit five hundred dollars and converted and disposed thereof to his own use to wit under a false and unfounded claim that the defendant was then entitled to seize and take possession of the said goods to enforce payment of a certain license then alleged to be due from the Plaintiff to Her Majesty by virtue of the Chinese Tax Act 1878 by means whereof and of the premises the Plaintiff was greatly by virtue of the Chinese Tax Act 1878 by means whereof and of the premises the Plaintiff was greatly annoyed prejudiced injured and disturbed in carrying and conducting his trade and business and prevented and deprived of the gains and profits which otherwise might and would have accrued to him and the plaintiff claim five hundred dollars.