Showing 788 results

Archival description
File Court Documents
Print preview Hierarchy View:

Reid v. Copeland and others

File consists of 2 documents: Agreement for Settlement; Affidavit of D.A. Copeland. Regarding the estate of A.A. Copeland. The properties of the deceased were to be sold and paid into court for the support and maintenance of the three infant Defendants.

Grand Jury Resentment

File consists of 1 document: Grievances of the Grand Jury. Summary of grievances of the Grand Jury. They seem to feel that many of the cases brought before them are of a trivial nature and could be settled in a lower court. They are also concerned with the increase in crime and make suggestions as to how to curb the problem such as not issuing anymore saloon licenses, lighting the streets better, etc.

Regarding the "Stone Man"

File consists of 17 documents: Information of W. Hamley; Affidavit of W.H. Langley; Notice of Information Marked as Exhibit "A", Affidavit of A.E. McCallum; Deposition of Witness J. Engelhardt, A. Milne, W.A. Franklin, R. Hunter, A.E. McCallum, J. Fisher, J. Desourrneau, R. Ward, Mrs. Scott, Colonel L. Scott, A. Platt; Recall of R. Hunter and A.E. McCallum. W. Hamley is the collector of customs at the Port of Victoria. While in this position, he charges that one Peter Douglas, alias Peter Gilbert, imported a certain parcel described as 1 ton of limestone. It was then discovered that the parcel was actually a block of marble carved in the image of "certain portions of the human body", known as the "Stone Man". Hamley seized the stone and claims that the image is forfeited under Section 48, 108, or 153 of the "Customs Act 1883".

Culverwell, Brooks & Co. v. Moss

File consists of 4 documents: Affidavit of J. Cox; Notice of Application for Payment Out; Affidavit of G. Potts; Affidavit of A. Belyea. Regarding the estate of M. Moss, deceased, and the monies that he owed to various parties. The case involved the schooner "Venture" and the schooner "Penelope", which appear to have belonged to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs had recovered a judgement against the Defendant for $12,305.63 and $101.90 for costs which remains unpaid.

McHugh and Heard

File consists of 1 document: Agreement. McHugh granted Heard Section 15, Range 5 east in South Saanich for a term of 10 years. The document outlines the terms of agreement.

Hudson's Bay Co. v. McCabe

File consists of 3 documents: Notice of Writ; Order for Substituted Service; Affidavit of Service. Plaintiffs claim $63.14 for goods sold and delivered to the Defendant. The Defendant was from Vernon originally but had since moved to San Francisco.

Heatham v. Armstrong

File consists of 1 document: Affidavit of T.B. Shoebothan. In regards to seizures made by the Sheriff of property belonging to the Plaintiff, situate on the premises known as the West Bay Saw Mill on Gambiers Island.

Laumeister v. Bowker

File consists of 2 documents: Affidavit of Bowker; Exhibit "B" - Account. Regarding the making of a track and the various amounts owed on the work. Exhibit "B" is the Defendant's account of amounts received by him out of the lands in question.

Regarding A.W. Presley, Assigned

File consists of 5 documents: Affidavit of J.D. Carscaden; Assignment Petition; Exhibits "A' and "B", statements of A.M. Nelson and A.W. Presley; Affidavit of Witness Russell; Affidavit of J.A. Russell. A.M. Nelson was entitled to act as trustee for Presley for the benefit of his creditors from which he was then removed and Carscaden was then appointed.

Cameron et al v. Harper

File consists of 2 documents: Affidavit of J.C. Prevost; Bond on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Defendant had previously brought about an action against the Plaintiffs for $500 in regards to the settlement of the estate of one Thaddeus Harper.

Clay v. Marston and Marston

File consists of 1 document: Exhibit "A" - Night Message Direct Wire (Telegram). Defendants were travelling as passengers on the steamer "Umatilla". The wire explains that a writ has been issued by the Plaintiff against the Defendants and they are to be attended to at the arrival of the steamer and serviced with this telegram.

Seeley v. Morse

File consists of 5 documents: Affidavit of B.H. Drake; Affidavit of J.H. Seeley; Affidavit of N.P. Snowden; Affidavit of A.F. Williams; Affidavit of H. Siddall. Plaintiff was owed $61.50 as receiver of rents on cabins on Humboldt Street in Victoria and in regards to the settlement of the estate of W.C. S. Seeley, the Plaintiff's father.

Regarding G. Johnson

File consists of 1 document: Record of Writ Filed. Johnson has employed T. Davie to take proceedings against Captain Luow, Master of the American barge "Helena", in the sum of $30 for wages owed to him while employed as an "able seaman".

Turner et al v. Withrow

File consists of 4 documents: Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service; Judgement by Default; Bill of Costs. Plaintiffs claim $113.11 principal and interest due to them as payees on a promissory note with the Defendant.

Selleck v. Reed Bros.

File consists of 2 documents: Declaration; Record. Plaintiff claims $1,250 for principal and interest due on money lent to the Defendants at their request and on accounts stated between them.

Rudolph v. Loewen and Erb

File consists of 4 documents: Bill of Complaint; Answers of J. Loewen; Answers; Answers of L. Erb. The Plaintiff purchased the interest of J. Jungermann, jeweler, and with such purchase he assumed a debt of $1,900 due to the Defendants. The Plaintiff also took out a life insurance policy for $3,000 and offered this to the Defendants as security on his debt with them. Debts were renegotiated, the Plaintiff fell ill, and the Defendants then refused to return or reassign the life insurance policy back to the Plaintiff.

Newfelder v. Dulig

File consists of 2 documents: Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service. Plaintiff claims $372.21 principal and interest due to him as the holder of a promissory note with the Defendant.

Tilbury v. Ward

File consists of 5 documents: (2) Affidavit of Tilbury; Judges Order; Affidavit of W.A. Edwards; Writ of Summons. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is indebted to him for $115.73 for work and labour done by him for the Defendant at his request. The Plaintiff is a veterinary surgeon.

Kelly v. Moss

File consists of 2 documents: Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service. Plaintiff claims $156.43 for debt and $40 for costs for goods supplied to the Defendants.

Woodcock v. Sehl et al

File consists of 7 documents: Interrogatories; (2) Affidavit of W. Pollard; Bill of Complaint; Affidavit of J. Hett; Answer of Defendant Sehl; Affidavit of J. Sehl. The Plaintiff is a trader and fish carver on the northwest coast of B.C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants had entered into an agreement for the purpose of prospecting and carrying on a general mining business in co-partnership. The partnership dissolved and the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is indebted to the partnership for $500.

Kelly v. Jackson

File consists of 4 documents: Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service; Plaintiff's Costs; Judgement by Default. Plaintiff claims $139.70 for debt and $17.50 for costs for goods supplied to the Defendants.

McWha et al v. Cameron

File consists of 5 documents: Affidavit to Hold to Bail; Summons; Judgement Roll; Judges Order for Capia; Affidavit of McWha. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is indebted to him for $350 for which he received judgment for that amount. The Plaintiff charges that the Defendant is concealing his property in order to avoid payment of the debt. The original judgement was obtained for several unpaid promissory notes with the Defendant.

Morton et al v. Leathers

File consists of 7 documents: Exhibit "Z" (Leather's Patent for Artificial Stone); Exhibit "A" (Receipt); Examination of P.D. Forbes; Affidavit of M.W. Drake; Order; Affidavit of E. Kelly; Notice of Motion. Case is in regards to a patent for artificial stone. It appears that the Plaintiff paid the Defendants for the patent but did not receive the notes.

Price v. Fletcher et al

File consists of 2 documents: Judgement; Costs of Judgement of Non-Prosecution. The Plaintiff was a saloonkeeper in Dennis Creek, Cassiar, and he claims that the Defendants converted to their own use and wrongfully deprived the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff's goods, a tent-house where he ran his business out of. The Plaintiff is claiming $5,000.

Saunders v. Herring

File consists of 3 documents: Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service; Judgement by Default. Plaintiff claims $505 principal and interest due to him as the holder of a promissory note from the Defendant.

Forbes v. Isaac alias Moore

File consists of 1 document: Reply to Interrogatories. The Defendant's reply to the interrogatories in the above named cause. The Defendant states that he never lived in the county of Essex, Ontario, and that he never went by the name of James Moore or any other name than William Isaac. He further states that he does not know the Plaintiff and has never done business with him.

Rickman and Ofner v. Gray and Young

File consists of 5 documents: Order to Hold to Bail; Affidavit of Hold to Bail; (3) Writ of Summons. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants are indebted to them for $130.50 on an unpaid promissory note. The Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants are about to defraud their creditors and quite the province of B.C.

Wilson v. Pagden et al

File consists of 4 documents: Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service; Judgement by Default; Plaintiff's Costs. The Plaintiff claims $103.33 principal and interest due to him as the holder of a promissory note with the Defendant.

Sehl v. Switzer

File consists of 3 documents: Judgment; Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service. Plaintiff claims $208 principal and interest due to him as payee on a promissory note with the Defendant.

Williams v. Cohen et al

File consists of 9 documents: Order for Leave to Appear; (2) Writ of Summons; Affidavit of J.M. Roger; Affidavit of W. Hoffman; Affidavit of A. Hoffman; Affidavit of W.M. Drake: Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service. The Plaintiff claims $1,156.24 principal interest due to him as payee on a promissory note. The Defendants are of the firm Cohen and Hoffman, Traders. Defendants Hoffman and Hoffman claim that the said Bill was not given in respect of any business or other transaction of the firm and therefore defend that they are not indebted to the Plaintiff for the said amount.

Mason v. Bate

File consists of 4 documents: Affidavit of H.F. Heisterman; Affidavit of R. Plummer (with attached Exhibits A & B). Mason is the administrator of the estate of W. Rippon. Rippon was the owner of a piece of property, Section 20, Range IV, Mountain District, Vancouver Island. Upon his death, the property was to be sold at public action, authorized by Mason. Noah Shakespeare, acting as the agent of Mr. Bate and the Vancouver Coal Company, purchased the said property on their behalf. Bate then stated that Shakespeare has exceeded his instruction. It is presumed that Mason is suing for the purchase price of the property, 100 acres at $250 an acre, equaling $25,000.

McLean v. Welch and Rithet

File consists of 1 document: Interrogatories. The interrogatories for the examination of the Defendants in answer to the Plaintiff's Bill of Complaint. Case is in regards to the sale of the business of J.R. Stewart and the Defendant's purchase and management of the business.

Cooper v. Gardiner

File consists of 1 document: Affidavit of H.B. Ella and J. Cooper. Plaintiff was a member of the Pilot Board of British Columbia. Defendant Gardiner has accused him of accepting bribes as a member of the said board in order to "induce him" to prevent persons from being licensed as pilots. Plaintiff is claiming $10,000 for damage of character. The Defendant is about to leave B.C. and Plaintiff asks that he be apprehended.

Irving v. Nesbitt

File consists of 2 documents: Affidavit of Mrs. Nesbitt; Affidavit of E. Irving. In the matter of W. Dickson, an infant. Upon the death of his father, the boy and his brother had been left in the care of the Irvings. Upon his brother's death, the boy had been sent to the Nesbitt family in Victoria 'for change'. Irving charges that the Nesbitts will no longer allow them to visit with the boy and that his education and religious instruction are not being properly attended to by the Nesbitts. They are suing for full custody of the child.

Results 1 to 50 of 788