Transcription Page

1904-10 Rex vs. Wong On and Wong Gow – murder (at the Chinese theatre)

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*Please note that archival source materials are original historical documents that have not been censored, reviewed or otherwise altered by the Royal BC Museum.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

BC Archives G-0419

Current Page Transcription [edit] [history]

him or not, but the objection is taken that it is not binding on him, and that he in incompetent to take an oath, therefore I feel I am thrown on to the Canada Evidence Act, and must make him affirm. MK. TAYLOR: I beg to call your Honor's attention to the fact that the Canada Evidence Act does not apply to this case at all. It had in contemplation a different circumstance entirely. One case was that of a Christian who was called up and he would take the ordinary form of oath, and then there was a provision made for a certain class of Christians who did not believe In the Bible oath but believed In a future state of punishment, and it was held that that class of people it was unfair that the testimony of those people should be excluded from Court of Justice, because they certainly would have an obligation on their conscience which would induce them to tell the truth as much so as the case of a person who took the oath,and therefore he could affirm, but that does not cover the case of the heathen who has some form of obligation which is binding on his conscience and the Affirmation is not. Therefore, I submit that the Court has a duty imposed upon it now to find out what form of belief he has and what particular form of ceremony is necessary to have the obligation imposed upon him to induce him to tell the truth under all circumstances. COURT: We have been trying to find that out Mr Taylor, and you know he says any one of the forms are equally binding on him. MR. TAYLOR: I must say that I have argued the legal effect of that answer before. COURT: And you argued that I was bound by BC Archives GR-0419 BRITISH COLUMBIA. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Box 100 File 1904/10 Attorney General documents.

Current Page Discussion [edit] [history]

Image 89 of 111