THE DAILY PROVINCE
JULY 20, 1906

p.6

TURBANED HINDUS FILL POLICE
COURT
------------------NOVELTIES IN OATHS

------------------Diverse Ways of Swearing In Sons of India -Difficulties of Interpretation – Case Was Finally
Adjourned –Lights and Shadows of To-day’s Session.

------------------The proceedings of the Police Court this morning were of a highly
picturesque nature by reason of the large attendance of Hindus who were
interested in the charges made by Rooh Mohammed against Dr. Davichand of
obtaining money under false pretences.
There was trouble from the very first, an interpreter who had been
brought from New Westminster failing to show even ordinary intelligence in
the taking of the oath. Finally Dr. Davichand allowed Mohammed Khen, who
seemed to have the direction of the prosecution, to act as interpreter.
A discussion as to the manner of taking the oath followed, in which the
magistrate wanted the rule laid down by Crankshaw followed, but the
interpreter brushed that authority to one side and unfolded the correct
method. This consisted in kissing the Koran three times, touching the
forehead with the book after each osculation. Later a Sikh took the stand and
refused this form, saying he believed in one God. Then Mohammed unfolded
another style of oath in the form of a simple declaration.
Demanded Payment of $5.
The allegation of the prosecution was to the effect that Dr. Davichand
has been prosecuting a regular system of extracting money from Hindus
coming to this country representing himself as a doctor, and threatening them

THE DAILY PROVINCE
JULY 20, 1906

p.6

that he would have them sent back if they did not pay. Rooh Mohammed, the
informant, said he came to Vancouver last May, and after the goro (white)
doctor had passed him, Davichand demanded $5 from him, saying he would
have him sent back if he did not pay. Being afraid, he paid the money, as did
also some of his companions.
The cross-examination of Mr. T. S. Baxter, who appeared for Dr.
Davichand, was directed to the end that the payment was made for services in
interpreting the commands of the white doctor for the securing of
employment, but the witness positively denied both points.
Mr. Baxter then attempted to show that the information was laid under
the influence of the man acting as interpreter, and an interesting passage
occurred between the pair. Dr. Davichand, who was checking up the
translation closely, said the interpreter was not saying what the witness said.
“I swear on my Bible. I cut off my head, if I not speak the truth,” the
Mohammed exclaimed, with emphatic gestures.
Two other witnesses from the same vessel gave similar evidence, the
last adding that Davichand said, he had a Government order.
Scene Changed to Victoria.
Then the sphere of operations was changed to Victoria, and two Sikhs
who came over on the last Empress alleged that Davichand met the liner there
and demanded $3 from each of the fifty-two men on board. His fees he said
were $2 and $1 for his fare. If the men paid they would get through at
Vancouver all right, but if they did not, they would be liable to be sent back.
Some of the men paid at Victoria, and others at Vancouver. All were afraid
they would be sent back. The last witness said Davichand said there was lots
of trouble for the men who did not pay.
Mr. Baxter asked that the case be dismissed on the ground that no false
representation had been made. Davichand had simply promised to interpret

THE DAILY PROVINCE
JULY 20, 1906

p.6

for the men when they were before the immigration doctor, and was around
to act in that capacity when the vessel came to the wharf.
Mr. Bowser, K. C., for the prosecution, claimed that the representation of
Davichand as a doctor was of the utmost consequence, inasmuch as the men
knew that they were to be examined, and feared being sent back. His going to
Victoria, where he boarded the vessel, also showed the systematic manner in
which he was prosecuting the work.
The defence was directed to produce its witnesses, and after the
examination of several, following the line noted by the cross-examination of
the prosecution’s witnesses, the case was adjourned for further hearing.