Mr Pollard: I deny being an officer of
any Court under the sun.
The Chief Justice: Take that down.
Mr Pollard: An attorney is an officer of the Court. I am an aider in the adminis-tration of Justice in this Court, a barrister at law.
The Chief Justice: Well, take that down. There can be no objection to that. Is there not a roll of barristers of this Court, Mr Masson?
Mr Masson said there was.
The Chief Justice: Is not Mr Whyte on the roll?
Mr Whyte: I was admitted by your lordship, but I never signed the roll.
The Chief Justice: I thought that was so. Mr Whyte remarked that he also was an aider in the administration of Justice in that Court.
Mr Masson here brought the roll into Court, and handed it to the Chief Justice, who said Mr Pollard's name is on the roll.
Mr Pollard: Yes, as a barrister.
The Chief Justice then remarked that he supposed all protests were now at an end, and proceeded to read from a M.S. as follows:-
Mr Pollard-After several delays it now becomes my painful duty to deliver the decision of this Court on your conduct on Thursday, the 27th of June last.
These delays have been interposed in order to give you time to reflect calmly on your conduct, and by submission and apo-logy to render the exercise of the indis-putable authority of the Court to punish for contempts towards it, unnecessary. In expressing what appears to be my duty on the present occasion I shall in sub-stance adopt the language of the Chief Jus-tice Lord Tenterden, of Mr Justice Bailey, of Mr Justice Holroyd, of the Chief Jus-tice Lord Winford in 1821, preferring to use language frequently since repeated, always with approbation, to any less forcible words of my own selection.
No man who pretends to any knowledge of the law can doubt, that a judge of a court of record has authority to fine or imprison for any contempt, committed in the face of the Court. From the earliest period of our history, this authority has been exercised. (Besi.)" In the case of an insult to him-self, it is not on his own account that he commits (or imposes a fine), for that is consideration which should never enter his mind. But, though he may despise the insult, it is a duty which he owes to the station to which he belongs, not to suffer those things to pass which will make him despicable in the eyes of others." (Holroyd.) "If I thought that the decision I am about to pronounce, could have the effect of restraining any barrister from exercising a bold as well as a legitimate course of advocacy, I would pause (even longer than I have done) before I pronounced that decision. The question, indeed, is a mo-mentous one. It is absolutely a question, whether the law of the land shall, or shall not continue to be properly administered. For it is utterly impossible that the law can be so administered, if those who are charged with the duty of administering it, have not power to prevent instances of indecorum from occurring in their own presence. That power has been vested in the judges, not for their personal pro-tection, but for that of the public. And a judge will depart from his bounden duty, if he forbears to use it when occasions arise which call for its exercise." (Abbott.)--- "When a case is conducted by counsel, they know perfectly well what the rules of law are, and they have that regard for their own character which generally prevents them from doing anything which may break in upon the rules of decency and decorum. Every man who comes into a court of justice, either as a party or barrister, must know that decency is to be observed there, that respect is to be paid to the judge. Of the power of a judge to fine for a contempt of court, I have not the least doubt." (Bayley.)
-I have now quoted enough to show you that whether an insult is offered to the Court by a barrister, by parties in a suit, or by anybody, it is contempt of court, and that the power of punishment by fine and imprisonment, is within the power of the court. The duty to punish contempts of court, and the right of the court to fine and im-prison the offender, and in the rare case of his being a Barrister to suspend him from practice, being proved by abundant cases, it is my duty merely to decide that you were guilty of a Contempt of this Court, on Thursday, the 27th of June last.
It is thought to be a rare case to suspend a bar-rister from practice, but as I have said, there are many such cases.
I can refer you to a case in which, there and then, for contempt of court, a barrister had his gown pulled off his back by order of the court. (Mr Pollard smiled). This is very amus-ing, Mr Pollard, but it is law.
Mr Pollard (still smiling): I know the case, my lord.
The Chief Justice: Well it is the law.
It is more satisfactory, however, that I should go into a detail as well as I can, and, so far as I deem necessary, of the cir-cumstances as they occurred. In the case then of Olyphant and others v. Loo-a-Hing, you opened the case for the plaintiffs as a breach of warranty to ship sugar to Shanghai of a specified quality. Your first Chinese witness, the compradore of the Plaintiffs, proved the signature by the Defendant to a contract in English, and that he had translated the document to the Defendant. In the course of that exami-nation you persistently, though more than once stopped by me,-I am astonished at your staring, Mr Pollard.
Mr Pollard: It was the glare of the sun, my lord.
The Chief Justice: Stare on, Mr Pol-lard; this is a subject for staring. (Con-tinuing to read from the M. S.)-You put leading questions to the compradore, and I felt that under his master's eye, that master sitting close to you and with your peremptory leading questions, one sort of answer only could be expected from him. I at length again objected to your persist-ing in putting such leading questions, say-ing to you, "Why, he is your own witness"; your answer to me was inferentially insisting that you had been right, "The Inter-preter is not." This answer offended pro-priety. It inferred an imputation on the Interpreter, who has been a zealous and honest Interpreter for some seven years, and it ignored the rule, being as it always has been imperative as to a Chinese as well as to an English witness. Your answer was pointed and curt, and was apparently made to raise, and only to raise, a laugh against me. This was your first contempt of Court, on which I said nothing then. The case proceeded. Mr Whyte asked the Compradore of your clients in cross exa-mination questions to show that he had examined the sugars as they were packed by direction of the plaintiffs, so as to show an approval by the plaintiffs of the sugars be-fore they were shipped. So far as it went the evidence of Plaintiffs' Compradore tend-ed to sustain the defence. You with un-necessary vehemence insisted to me that this evidence could not be received. I de-cided to receive it, and your demeanour was to say the least disrespectful in conse-quence. It appeared to be a point with the defendant to show that the Plaintiffs by their servants had approved of each package of sugar before it was shipped, and it was ex-tracted from your clients' compradore that when the compradore was absent a trusted coolie of the Plaintiffs was present.
Mr Whyte for defendant asked where that coolie was. Thereupon I said to you that as he was a servant of the Plaintiffs you should produce him in Court. Thereupon you turned to me, and looking me stead-fastly in the face, you said with a scornful expression of countenance, our eyes meet-ing,
Page 427
...
DX.