348 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 78 PART 3 MAY 2020
pale ale that “celebrates Greer’s bold pioneering spirit with two brazen beers
steeped in the area’s tradition, as unruly and fun-loving as Kits Beach’s present
day denizens”.3
Pioneer Greer had not only brandished an axe to chase off the first group
of officials who had come to evict him; he had cut telegraph wires, built a
barricade of railway ties and mounted a brass swivel gun on it. The gun was
reportedly ten feet long, with a range of two miles and Greer “threatened to
shoot the next party that dared to invade his privacy.4 Vancouver Is Awesome’s
account culminates in 1891 with what is referred to as the “final
showdown”, when Greer, claiming defence of property, shot a deputy sheriff.
A jury initially found that Greer had discharged his weapon accidentally,
but according to The Victoria Daily Colonist, Chief Justice Begbie “browbeat”
them into finding him guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and
Greer was sent to prison.5
The editors of The Colonist criticized Begbie for his lack of sympathy for
Greer, whom they described as “an old timer”, adding that “old timers are
looked upon with peculiar indulgence in British Columbia—and properly so”.6
They conceded that Greer could be unreasonable but said that it was “quite
certain that people approve what was done by the illogical but kind-hearted
jury, while they feel indignant at the treatment which those twelve conscientious
men received at Begbie’s hands”. The jurors, they were informed, had
been “insulted and chidden like school boys” by the chief justice.7
They had originally returned a somewhat garbled verdict of “bodily
harm, accidental explosion, recommend mercy”, which Begbie had refused
to accept, holding that it was not a verdict known to the law.8 So, he sent
them all back to reconsider, and “at their request, and in the presence of the
prisoner”, he visited them in the jury room—something he had done in at
least one other case.9 After this little tête-à-tête, the jury did reconsider and
returned with a verdict of guilty. But once again, they recommended
mercy. When Begbie asked them why, they all “remained silent”.10
It is certainly true that Begbie was not above browbeating a jury; in the
colonial period, he was famous for it. His methods could be unorthodox,
and his tongue could be sharp when he felt juries were shirking their duty
or when he thoroughly disapproved of a convicted man’s behaviour. When
he sentenced Greer, he said:
Your career has been one of crime from the time that I first met you, and it
will be necessary to put a stop to such a course. It would have been well for
you if, at Chilliwack, you had been locked up and prevented from pursuing
such a career of crime as you have led. The full punishment of the statute
is three years’ imprisonment. In consideration of the recommendation of
the jury, I will knock off nine months, but for 27 months you must be in the