392
E. H. Pollard, Esquire, Q.C., to Honorable H. J. Ball, Acting Colonial Secretary.
Hongkong, 4th July, 1867.
SIR,
I have the honor to request that you will bring the following matters to the notice of His Excellency the Governor.
In the course of a trial at Nisi Prius before the Chief Justice and a Common Jury on Thursday last, the 27th day of June, I was called upon by the Chief Justice to apologise to the Court, and in reply asked, most respectfully, to be informed what it was that an apology was required from me for. The Chief Justice in reply mentioned some words which he alleged I had used towards the Court, and as His Lordship was in error in so stating, I asked if that was all, intending, if it were, to explain the matter to His Lordship's satisfaction. The Chief Justice, however, replied, "no, it is not all, you know what you have done," upon this I informed His Lordship that I really did not know to what he alluded, disavowed any intention of insulting the Court, and expressed my willingness to apologise if informed how I could have offended the Court. His Lordship, however, did not inform me of what he complained and adjourned the case, saying he would not proceed with it unless I apologised. On Saturday, the 29th of June, I was again in the Supreme Court in another Common Jury Case, when His Lordship addressed, or rather spoke at me, alluding to his having been insulted. I again denied having insulted the Court, either in act or intention, and asked to be informed what I had done, saying, again, that I was willing to apologise if I had offended. The Chief Justice, however, did not then inform me what I had done on the Thursday, but said he would "give his decision" on Monday (afterwards adjourned to Tuesday). On Tuesday, the 2nd of July, the Chief Justice ordered the Registrar of the Court to call upon me to stand up before the Court while he gave judgment against me, and proceeded to read a Judgment and impose upon me a fine of Two hundred Dollars, and in addition suspended me from Practice as a Barrister for Fourteen days. The Chief Justice never told me of what I was accused, and the first time I heard of what he did accuse me was when he read out his Judgment, six out of seven so-called contempts never having been alluded to by the Judge in Court at any time, and three of them having been said to occur on Saturday, on which occasion he never even hinted at any disrespect, his last words being "I will postpone my decision on the Thursday's occurrence until Tuesday," thus fining me for three alleged contempts of Court, to the existence of which he had never even alluded, and after the alleged occurrence of which I appeared before him as Counsel in a Jury cause, and three times in his Chambers sitting in Bankruptcy. I applied repeatedly on Tuesday to His Lordship to hear me, but he peremptorily refused. The Judgment delivered by His Lordship contains many statements which are utterly untrue, and such incidents mentioned therein as did occur are grossly distorted and exaggerated, whilst His Lordship has omitted or egregiously misrepresented my repeated requests to know what I was accused of and my expression of willingness to apologise.