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*Please note that archival source materials are original historical documents that have not been censored, reviewed or otherwise altered by the Royal BC Museum.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]
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,