Showing 987 results

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

Pidcock v. Duncan

File consists of two documents: Envelope; and Correspondence between Pidcock and the court. Duncan has been committed to prison for one week for contempt of court and failure to obey a summons.

Phillips and Others v. Green

File contains: Notice of Motion; Order; Agreement to Close Evidence; Affidavit of J. Hart; Notice of Motion to Dissolve Injunction; Order of Court for Writ of Injunction; Order; Replication; Affidavit of B. Moses; Notice; (2) In Equity; and Affidavit of D. Green. Legal matters, case material is unclear.

Pennell and Others v. Billings and Others

File contains: Order; Order of Judge to Ascertain Damages; (2) bill of Costs of the Plaintiff; Certificate of No Defense filed; Summons; Affidavit of Drake; Registrars Certificate of Amount for Final Judgment; and Affidavit of Service. The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendants are indebted to them for 1280 pounds, 13 shillings and 8 pence for money payable by the Defendants converted to their own use and wrongfully deprived the Plaintiff of the use and possession of one of the Plaintiffs' goods, being 301 casks of flour, 50 sacks of barley, and 10 cases of sherry.

Pemberthey to Pelletier

File consists of two documents: Bill of Sale of the "Richfield Hotel" and Affidavit of Attesting Witness wherein, in consideration of the sum of $3,000, J. Pemberley bargains, sells and transfers Lot 56 in Richfield along with the hotel erected thereon.

Nicholson v. Ash

File consists of one document: Record of Plaintiff claiming money owed to him by the Defendant for goods sold and delivered and for work done and materials provided in the amount of $1,232.56 U.S. coin.

Newfelder v. Selleck and Rothwell

File contains: Bill of Complaint. The Plaintiff and the Defendants had formed a co-partnership in the city of San Francisco for the purpose of buying and selling grain and flour and other merchandise under the firm name of Russell and Co., which then changed to Rothwell and Newfelder. The business co-partnership ceased operations but has never been wound up and no settlement has been made between the partners. The Defendants moved to Victoria, taking with them the property of the firm of Rothwell and Newfelder but refused to give the Plaintiff an account of their sales. The Plaintiff is suing for damages and for the settlement of all accounts in the co-partnership.

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.

Nelson to Cullis

File consists of one document: Bill of Sale. Nelson sells and transfers to Cullis a business and premises including a house and bakery known as Nelson's Bakery for consideration of the sum of $100.

Needham vs Brown

Writ of Summons; Affidavit of Service; Judgment by Default; Affidavit of W. Drake; Plaintiff's Costs.

-The Plaintiff claims $830.76 for debt and $12.50 for costs for an amount of rent due in respect of Saanich Hall farm as well as interest on arrears of rent.

Myers v. Nathan and Others

File contains: Articles of Agreement; Draft; Testimony of J. Ehrenbecker; Affidavit of W.M. Drake; Order to Sue; (2) Affidavit of E. Myers; Order; Summons; Agreement; Record; and Rejoinder. This action is brought to recover the sum of 500 pounds as damages for an alleged trespass committed by the above named Defendants. The Plaintiff was saloon keeper of "Myers Melodeon" on Yates Street in Victoria. The Defendants created a great disturbance there, removed the goods and chattels of the Plaintiff for their own use, and assaulted and beat the Plaintiff and expelled him and his family from the premises.

Murray v. Cleal

File consists of four documents: Affidavit of P. Byron; Bill of Costs; Affidavit o fR. Bishop and D. Cleal; and Affidavit of R.H. Wilson. Case regards P. Byron's statement that he was intending to leave Victoria, which he was then apprehended for, was not true. Cleal claims that there were malicious motives involved and he had no intention whatsoever of leaving the colony.

Murray v. Campbell

File consists of two documents: affidavit of W. Muuray; and order. Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff for $109 for goods sold and delivered. The Plaintiff is concerned that the Defendant is about to leave the colony and asks that he be apprehended.

Murphy vs. Katz

Bond; (2) Writ of Summons; Correspondence on case; Affidavit of T. Davie; Affidavit of T.G. Murphy; Affidavit of Katz; Defendant's Costs of Suit; Issue; Judges order

The Plaintiff claims $250 for debt and $15 for costs for services performed by him as an Attorney at Law and Solicitor on behalf of the Defendant at Washington territory in the United States and for work done for the Defendant at his request.

Morton vs Drummond

Petition.

-Morton and Drummond had been candidates for election for the office of mayor holder in Victoria. Morton is charging that the list of voters used at the election for mayor was made out in a manner contrary to law and contained the names of many people who were not supposed to be on the voters list. The voters list was based on a Road Tax List, which had not been revised for the year 1874, and contained a great many names that had been put on it for the purpose of enabling them to vote. Morton charges that Drummond won the election as a result of these people that weren't supposed to be voting and asks that the election results be declared void and Drummond be removed from the position.

Morton v. Drummond

File consists of 2 documents: Affidavit of C. Morton; Correspondence regarding Inspection of Poll Books. Morton, a hotelkeeper, is claiming the office of mayor in consequence of the illegal acts of J. Drummond. Morton and Drummond had both been candidates for the office of Mayor in Victoria by which Drummond won the election illegally.

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.

Morris v. Capron (3); Victoria; 1860.12

No. of Plaint – 337
Summons; Invoice for £1.17.6; Note to the Registrar from G.E. Dennes, the Defendant‟s attorney

  • Capron is summoned to appear in court to answer the Plaintiff for the total amount of £2.0.4. The amount appears to be owed for books sold to the Defendant.

Moore v. Gordon

File contains: (2) Writ of Capri as; Affidavit of T. Gordon; and Writ of Summons. The Plaintiff claims 399 pounds for debt, 33 pounds for costs for cash paid by the Plaintiffs as endorsees of certain Bills of Exchange for the use of the Defendant and for money agreed to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as interest thereon.

Montserrat v. Little

File consists of two documents: Summons; Confession of Judgment. The Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of 290 pounds, 4 shillings for money due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for goods sold and delivered and for money due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff on an account stated between them

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.

Monterio v. Waite

File consists of five documents: Affidavit of Waite; Testimony of J. Monterio; Order, Rule to Discontinue; Judges Order Allowing Appearance and Defense to Action. Defendant and Plaintiff were in a business partnership together and the Defendant Waite is indebted to the Plaintiff for $233.54 for a debt incurred while in this partnership

Millard v. Leigh

File consists of four documents: Bill of Complaint; Affidavit of H. Courtney; Order; Defendants Costs of Opposing the Injunction. Plaintiff had rented a house in Victoria belonging to the Defendant at a monthly rent of 4100. Plaintiff made an agreement with the Defendant to cover two months rent for repairs made to the house. Defendant denies this agreement after the repairs had been made and the Plaintiff is suing for damages.

Results 401 to 450 of 987