405
that "no one wanted to reach Mr. POLLARD his duty, but that he, as Judge, had also a duty to "discharge." Mr. POLLARD then said "very well, my Lord, we shall both do our duty and it will be "all right," or words to that effect. The Chief Justice then, in a very angry tone, told Mr. POLLARD to sit down and keep silence, adding that Mr. POLLARD made it a rule to have always the last word, which was disrespectful to the Bench. Mr. POLLARD was about again addressing him, but the Chief Justice desired him to sit down, and abruptly left the Bench.
7. After a short interval, the Chief Justice returned and at once asked Mr. POLLARD if he apologised; Mr. POLLARD asked him for what; the Chief Justice said, "you know very well for what." Mr. POLLARD, in a quiet and collected manner, said that he had never intentionally been disrespectful to the Bench, and was not conscious of having done anything that could be so construed, that no one would be more ready to acknowledge his fault and to apologise if shown reason for so doing, but "he did not see that he had done anything which called for an apology," and added that "he thought "the Court should be satisfied, there was an intention to insult it before making such an assumption.” The Chief Justice then said in an excited tone "did you not say to me that a Chinaman was not a "piece of paper?" Mr. POLLARD asked "is it for that, my Lord, I am to apologise?" The Chief Justice said that is part of it, but there is more.” Mr. POLLARD denied knowing what the Chief Justice alluded to and asked to be informed, and attempted, two or three times, to address the Court, but the Chief Justice refused to hear him or to tell him with what he charged him, and angrily ordered him to be silent, and to sit down, and then he addressed the Jury, in a very excited manner, and told them he would adjourn the Court until Saturday, the Twenty-ninth. Mr. POLLARD protested against the adjournment, arguing that though the Court had power to deal with him, it was not competent to prejudice the Plaintiffs' case, as other Counsel could be procured for them. I also appealed to the Court to permit me, at least, to finish the cross-examination of the Comprador, as I deemed it of the utmost importance for my client that his cross-examination should proceed. The Chief Justice however refused, and then adjourned the case indefinitely, saying to the Jury that he "would not proceed with the case until Mr. POLLARD apologised."
8. The Court was accordingly adjourned, but, by mutual consent, the Record was immediately withdrawn, and the case submitted to arbitration, as the mode of dealing with it which appeared to be least prejudicial to the interests of our respective clients.
9. On Saturday, the Twenty-ninth of June, I was again in the Supreme Court as Counsel for the Defendant in a case in which Mr. POLLARD appeared for the Plaintiffs. As soon as the Chief Justice had taken his seat on the Bench, he asked if any gentleman at the Bar had anything to say; on this, I informed him that the case, which had been before him on the preceding Thursday, had been referred to arbitration. The Chief Justice asked if any other gentleman had anything to say, and there being no answer, he then proceeded to read, as it appeared to me, from a manuscript, some sentences which, to the best of my belief, are given verbatim in the report contained in the China Mail of the Twenty-ninth of June, (copy hereunto annexed, marked A.) He intimated that he intended to give his decision in the matter on the following Monday, as Mr. POLLARD had received notice. Mr. POLLARD denied having received any such notice. The Chief Justice remarked that his objection "was but a technical one and was in keeping with his conduct throughout." Mr. POLLARD then asked permission to speak, which was refused. Mr. POLLARD then called on the Chief Justice to note that he had applied to the Court to be allowed to speak and permission was refused. On this the Chief Justice said, "Oh if you put it in that way you may speak," and when asked what he had to say, he stated that he had never sought to be aggressive" on this the Chief Justice interposed, in an excited manner, saying "that the Bench could protect itself from aggression," or something to the like purport, Mr. POLLARD then, in a very collected and respectful manner, disavowed ever having intentionally insulted the Court and assured the Chief Justice that there was "no one who more respected the Bench than he did even apart from his position as a Barrister, but that he also owed "something to his profession as a member of the Bar, that he was not aware of having done anything "which required him to make an apology, but that he was then ready to do so, if any one, who was present in Court on the previous Thursday, would say that an apology was due from him to the Bench, and that he was not the only member of the Bar who had been in Court on that occasion."
10. While in the act of finishing the last sentence, Mr. POLLARD sat down; the Chief Justice in a very angry and insulting tone ordered him to stand when he addressed the Court. Mr. POLLARD rose and said that was all he had to say.
11. The case proceeded and lasted for some hours; at its close, before charging the Jury, the Chief Justice called both Counsel up to the Bench and made suggestions, which led to a verdict against my client by consent. Both Mr. POLLARD and I had also occasion, three times on that day, to attend before the Chief Justice in his Chamber in Bankruptcy, but nothing particular passed. Mr. POLLARD was most respectful, and the Chief Justice appeared to be on the very best terms with him. At the close of the day it was announced that his decision would be given "on the Thursday's occurrence," on Tuesday the Second of July, instead of Monday the First, the day originally named.
12. On Tuesday, the Second of July, I was also in Court. When the Chief Justice had taken his seat, Mr. POLLARD most respectfully protested against the Jurisdiction of the Court to deal with him in any manner for anything which had occurred previously. A note was taken of his objection, and he was then called upon by the Acting Registrar of the Court, in a manner most humiliating to him, to stand whilst the Chief Justice read out a very lengthened Judgment, which to the best of my belief is accurately reported in the Daily Press for Wednesday, July Third, (copy hereunto annexed, marked B.)
13. I have been for many years a Member of the Irish Bar and was constant attendant at the Courts in Dublin, previous to my appointment in One thousand Eight hundred and Sixty-two, as Police Magistrate of Hongkong, and I can conscientiously declare, that never in my experience, has any Barrister, much less a Queen's Counsel, been treated with such indignity, and subjected to such public contumely, as Mr. POLLARD was on the Second of July.
14. I can also conscientiously affirm that there was nothing done or said by Mr. POLLARD either on the Twenty-seventh or the Twenty-ninth of June which called for such an unusual expression of displeasure on the part of the Chief Justice; and I believe that if the Chief Justice had not unfortunately allowed himself to be needlessly and unduly excited, he would not have construed any of the acts of Mr. POLLARD on either of those days to be contempts of Court.
Sworn at Victoria, Hongkong, this
Eighteenth day of July, A.D. 1867.
Before me
R. C. Hayes
When Charles Whyte.
MS for Hayking AnyRay