396
witness, the Plaintiffs' Comprador, first, as he had been the medium of communication between the Plaintiffs and Defendant, the said E. A. HITCHCOCK, by consent, stood down, and the said Comprador to the Plaintiffs was put into the box and examined by Your Petitioner in Chief fully proving the facts opened to the Jury.
That at one part of the examination, while the witness had one small Jar and three Tins each containing samples of Sugar, before him on the table, the witness' answers as interpreted by Mr. ROZARIO, the Court Interpreter, appeared so inconsistent and incoherent, that it was evident some confusion existed, in the mind of the Interpreter, about the relation of these four samples to each other and the bulk of the Sugar (being the subject matter of the action), and this confusion was not lessened by the fact of the Chief Justice having two or three times called the Interpreter to order for commencing the interpretation of the answers of the witness by the word "Yes" or "No," the witness not having made use of it. Under these circumstances, Your Petitioner put a direct question, as to one of the samples of Sugar, in order to clear up the confusion, and the Chief Justice said, “You should not lead (or press) him, Mr. POLLARD, he is your own witness." Your Petitioner replied, in a deprecatory manner, "Yes, my Lord, but he is not my own Interpreter,” upon which the Chief Justice said "He is the Court Interpreter and therefore your Interpreter as well as for the other party," or words to a like purport.
That at the conclusion of the examination in Chief, Mr. WHYTE proceeded to cross-examine for the Defendant. Your Petitioner was seated at the Bar Table looking at an Authority intended to be referred to for the Plaintiffs, and taking notes when necessary of the cross-examination, when the witness having stated that one of the Coolies in the service of the Plaintiffs, had been to the Defendant's place about the Sugar and had seen it put into the Boats, Mr. WHYTE asked his name, and, on getting it, turned round to Your Petitioner, still seated in the next chair to him, and said "POLLARD, are you going to produce this man, as if not I can subpoena him." Your Petitioner jocularly replied to Mr. WHYTE “I can't produce him as if he were a piece of paper or a Book, but I shall not call him, though I dare say he is at the Plaintiffs' place" (near to the Court) "and you can easily send for him."
That Mr. WHYTE then turned round and directed the Managing Clerk of the Defendant's Attorney (seated near him), to get him subpoenaed, and Your Petitioner, while still looking at the said Book, was surprised to hear the Chief Justice say, in a loud and excited tone, "Mr. POLLARD, do I understand you to say that you are not going to produce this Coolie?," and Your Petitioner rising replied, "No, my Lord, I do not want him, but he can easily be sent for if my learned friend wants him." The Chief Justice then said "Do you mean to say you are not going to call the Plaintiffs' own Coolie but will put the Defendant to the expense of sending a subpoena for him?" and on Your Petitioner replying "Yes, my Lord," the Chief Justice said in an angry and heated manner "Very well then I shall take very good care to comment on it when I charge (or address) the Jury."
That Your Petitioner then rose and, addressing the Court, said, "My Lord, I am the Plaintiffs' Counsel and have the sole discretion as to what witnesses I shall call, and if I fail, my client may suffer, but it is solely in my discretion, and I decline being taught my duty by any one," and the Chief Justice in a most passionate manner said "No one wants to teach you your duty, Sir, sit down," and on Petitioner attempting to speak said "Silence, Sir," and jumped off his chair and hurried down the steps leading from the Bench.
That the Chief Justice, after an absence of a few moments, returned, and, without acknowledging the reverence made by the Bar on his re-appearance, sat down and said, still in a very angry and excited manner, "Mr. POLLARD, do you apologise?" Your Petitioner rose and said, respectfully, "For what my Lord?" and on the Chief Justice saying "You know what for," assured His Lordship that he did not know. The Chief Justice then said, "You taunted me with the fact that a coolie was not a piece of paper as if I did not know that," and Your Petitioner then respectfully asked "Is it for that Your Lordship wishes me to apologise?" intending, if His Lordship had said was, to have explained that His Lordship was in error in supposing that those words had been addressed to the Court, as they had been said jocularly to the learned Counsel on the other side; and to have satisfied His Lordship on the matter. The Chief Justice however said "No, that is not all, you know very well what it is."
That Your Petitioner thereupon, in a manner pointedly respectful, addressed the Court to the following effect or purport, "My Lord, I have never knowingly been disrespectful to the Court in my life, and am utterly unconscious of having been so to-day, and would be glad to know what Your Lordship complains of, as no one is more ready to apologise, if he have done wrong, than I am." The Chief Justice said, “You would not have dared to speak to any other Judge as you have to me," and Your Petitioner said, "I have done my duty for a number of years and was never attacked in such a way before, and would defend myself if similarly attacked anywhere." The Chief Justice said, "You do your duty and I will do mine," to which Your Petitioner replied "If that rule be followed, my Lord, it will be much better."
4
That the Chief Justice then ordered Your Petitioner, who vainly attempted to address the Court several times, to sit down, and in a most insulting and contemptuous manner said "Silence, Sir," "Sit down, Sir" "Hold your tongue, Sir" and told the Jury he would adjourn the Court till Saturday, and not proceed with the case until (or unless) Mr. POLLARD apologised.
That Your Petitioner then rose and said "My Lord, with the greatest respect I submit, that though Your Lordship has very large powers to deal with me if I have done wrong, which I am not conscious of, it is not competent to the Court to prejudice the Plaintiffs, who may choose to appear by another Counsel," to which the Chief Justice angrily replied, "I don't care, I will not proceed with the case unless Mr. POLLARD apologises" and telling the Registrar to adjourn the Court sine die, left the Court. On the proposition of the Defendant's Counsel the Record was there and then withdrawn and the case referred to arbitration.
On Saturday, the Twenty-ninth day of June, Your Petitioner was again in the Supreme Court, being engaged as Counsel for the Plaintiffs in a case set down for trial before the Chief Justice and a common Jury, and Mr. WHYTE was Counsel for the Defendant in this case also. Before coming into Court, the Registrar came into the robing room, and asked Your Petitioner if he was going to apologise, because, if not, the Chief Justice would, on some future day, give his decision. Your Petitioner asked if he was told this as from the Judge, and the Registrar said "No, not as from the Judge, but His Lordship told me, and I think he wishes you to know." On the Chief Justice coming into Court, instead of the ordinary general salutation or bow towards the Bar, His Lordship walked to one end of the Bench, bowed pointedly to Mr. WHYTE, walked back to his chair, sat down, and asked if any one had anything to say to the Court, and, after some
DEX.