Tanaka et al. v Russell

Tanaka et al. v Russell

Tanaka et al v Russell, [1902] 9 BCR 24
The defendant was arrested while attempting to leave the province, due to his being indebted some $2,620.00 to the plaintiff. The defendant’s lawyers offered a special bail to the plaintiffs if he would be permitted to depart the jurisdiction; the defendant then took out a summons to set aside the writ of capias that the plaintiff had had him arrested under, arguing that the writ was “irregular and void” as it was “improperly granted on insufficient material.” (26) This summons was dismissed as “wrongly entitled”; it was asserted that the summons should have been heard in Chambers at New Westminster. (25) The defendant issued a second summons on “the same grounds,” and, once again, it was stated that the summons ought to have been issued at New Westminster, not Vancouver. Justice Irving also dismissed the summons application, with costs, stating that it was “immaterial... whether the writ was a nullity or not,” (26) as the defendant had given a special bail, thereby waiving his right to object to the writ of capias.



Tanaka et al. v Russell


Researcher: Monique F. Ulysses
Researcher: Lauren Chalaturnyk
Metadata author: Connell Parish
Metadata author: Gordon Lyall
Publication Information: See Terms of Use for publication and licensing information.
Source: British Columbia Supreme Court. British Columbia Reports. 1902.


Readers of these historical materials will encounter derogatory references to Japanese Canadians and euphemisms used to obscure the intent and impacts of the internment and dispossession. While these are important realities of the history, the Landscapes of Injustice Research Collective urges users to carefully consider their own terminological choices in writing and speaking about this topic today as we confront past injustice. See our statement on terminology, and related sources here.