Showing 1933 results

Archival description
John Keenlyside Legal Research Collection
Print preview Hierarchy View:

617 results with digital objects Show results with digital objects

Carswell v. King (1); Victoria; 1860.17

No. of Plaint – 279
No. of Execution – 24
Warrant

  • Carswell had recovered a judgment for £48.13.1 from the Defendant. The Defendant had not paid the total amount of debt and costs owed to the Plaintiff and the court by the assigned date and therefore the Warrant authorizes the sale of the Defendant‟s goods and chattels to cover the debt. The note on the warrant from the Court Bailiff indicates that the goods and chattels of King have been sold and the amount owed has been paid to the Registrar of the Court.

Montrose v. Moses (2); Victoria; 1860.26

No. of Plaint – 291

Summons; Invoice for £36.16.8

  • Moses is summoned to appear in court to answer the Plaintiff for the total amount of £38.6.4. The amount is the outstanding debt owed to the Plaintiff for labour, materials and erecting a building on Yates Street.

Gambitz v. Norris (4); Victoria; 1861.07

No. of Plaint – 691

Summons; Invoice for £10.8.2; Affidavit of Gambitz; Affidavit of Norris.

  • Norris is summoned to appear in court to answer the Plaintiff for the total amount of £12.12.4. The amount is due for a hoop and some carpet sold to the Defendant by the Plaintiff.

Robson v. Greene (2); Victoria; 1861.09

No. of Plaint – 694

(2) Summons

  • one of the summons puts Robson as the Plaintiff, Green as the Defendant; the other puts Green as the Plaintiff and Robson as the Defendant. The specifics of the case are unclear. Both parties are being summoned to appear in court.

Trounce v. Strachan and Ogilvy

File consists of 2 documents: Exhibit "A" (correspondence from R. Bishop); Joint Affidavit of G. Pearkes and J. Strachan. The action was brought about for the recovery of $2,000 in respect of the non-delivery of certain rubble and dimensional sandstone by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

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.

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.

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".

Results 101 to 150 of 1933