and in a discourteous and defiant manner, "He is not a piece of paper to be produced in Court. Let the Defendant subpoena him in the usual way." (Slight applause in Court). On that I, considering that the Defendant was a Chinaman, said to this effect "Do you mean, Mr Pollard, to put them to the expense and difficulty of finding and subpoenaing your own servant?"
Upon this, you, with vehemence of tone and manner said to me, "I will put only those witnesses into the box which I as Counsel for the Plaintiff's think fit. I will not be dictated to or talked down by any one as to what I am to do." I was taken aback, and said "I was not dictating to you or talking you down, you will do your duty and I will do mine." I meant, as you must have known, indeed I believe I added, that you would call or not call witnesses according to your duty, and that I in directing the Jury would do mine in directing them to make the proper inferences from your keeping back such a witness. What you said, added to your tone and manner, inferred that I had improperly dictated to you, and that I had improperly attempted to talk you down. This was your second contempt of Court.
Now there at least should have been an end; but acting on your all but universal rule, you would and did reply to me, and you said "That is all right, if we would only stick to it," in a tone and with a manner which inferred and must have been meant to infer that I would not.
Now this was your third contempt of Court. By this time your manner towards me appeared to me to be violent, and your general bearing was such as that I felt the cause could not then proceed with any chance of justice. I felt that the Court had been grievously insulted. I felt it to be my duty then and there either to have committed or to have imposed a fine on you, but at the same time I feared that anger might be present in my mind, and I left the Bench as the least evil before me, and to avoid what from experience I had too much reason to expect, a continuance of insult.
After an absence which I now wish had been longer, I returned to the Bench. On my return your manner was contemptuous towards me. Not noticing that, I asked whether you would apologize. Your first notice of this was, "For what, my Lord?" You then went into wide generalities, that if you had offended no one was more willing to admit it and apologize. You then referred to my having asked you if you would produce a witness, on which I said that you had tauntingly told the Court a witness was not a piece of paper, as if I did not know witness was not a piece of paper. Thereupon you said, admitting inferentially that you had said so, but still in a defiant manner, "Is it that you wish me to apologise for?" (The Chief Justice here paused a moment, and looking at Mr Pollard, said, emphatically) "Mr Pollard, your eyes are opened very wide" (laughter in court).
Mr Pollard: And with cause, my lord.
The Chief Justice proceeded: I said yes, and that there were other matters requiring an apology, and you proceeded to address me in a manner and tone as offensive as before, from which I felt satisfied your only object was to get me into a most unseemly wrangle. Not choosing to trust myself then to punish the contempt as I felt was necessary, and feeling that until you had apologised, or at least in the then state of excitement and indecorum into which the proceedings had been thrown the case could not properly be proceeded with, I adjourned the Court as the least objectionable course.
You then still persevering in your defiant tone, protested against the adjournment as being entirely without precedent. I said I should adjourn the Court till Saturday (the Friday being a holiday) adding, "as we cannot get on in the present circumstances," and you still as if you had not caused what happened desired me to take a note of your objection. You then said "If I have done any wrong, there are certain steps which may be taken by the Court," and you requested me to take a note of your objection. By this language you adopted deliberately all you had previously said, and so far from apologising courted the consequences on yourself personally of your contempts.
I replied there were such steps, but that I would not then take them. You proceeded, and I had peremptorily to say, "Silence, Sir." I said you would not dare to use elsewhere such language as you had used. I added "The Court is adjourned." Still you persisted in renewing your unseemly language to the Court, addressing me after I had requested you to be silent; and after I had adjourned the Court one of your observations was, "I always answer when I am attacked and not without." Your speaking at all was an indecorum. What you said was a contempt in imputing to the Court that it had attacked you, which was the converse of what had occurred. I consider this your fourth contempt.
I was thus, by what you said after the court was adjourned, driven to adjourn the case so far indefinitely, and I said I could not hear it, you being Counsel, till you should have apologised. I am glad to find that the cause out of which the above occurrences arose has been referred to arbitration, because I feel sure that the arbitrators will decide according to the very right of the case, which unfortunately this Court, being tied by technical rules applicable to another state of society, can scarcely do.
On Saturday another case came on in which you again appeared as Counsel. I having previously directed the Acting Registrar to communicate with you my intention to give a decision unless you previously apologised, I asked if any gentleman had anything to say in reference to Thursday. You were present, looking very indignantly at me, but said nothing. I then shortly referred to and cited the leading cases shewing that ex necessitate I was bound to punish an insult to the Court and advised consideration of those cases to persons interested in the matter. My intention was obviously to give you another opportunity after referring to the law to apologise. I said I would give any decision Monday, and that you had had due notice. You taking the matter as one of dry notice, said "I have received no notice." It seemed that the Acting Registrar had told you I should give my decision, but he omitted to say on Monday, as I had intended he should.
The spirit in which the objection that you had not received notice was made satisfied me that you did not understand what had passed in its true bearings. Having obtained leave to address me you began thus, "Merely this, my Lord; I don't seek to be aggressive." This language under the circumstances of your being before me as charged with contempt, was a contempt, and I designate it your fifth contempt.
You proceeded "It is the Bench I respect." This was said in a tone which clearly inferred, and was meant to infer, that it was the Bench as distinguished from its occupant that you, a Queen's Counsel, had such respect for as you professed to have. This was a contempt, according to the highest authority, of a very grave character. This was your sixth contempt. (At this stage Mr Pollard found some cause of uneasiness at his neck, to which he paid momentary attention. The Chief Justice, again pausing, said) "When you are ready, Mr Pollard, I will proceed."
Mr Pollard: The button of my band has come off, your lordship.
The Chief Justice: Oh, I can wait for that. It is quite proper that the button of your band should come off. (Continuing to read): You then proceeded to say that you had done nothing which could be properly called an insult. You then sat down and continued to address me sitting, on which I had to request you to stand whilst you addressed the Court. You then said that was all you had to say. I give you credit for having uniformly insisted as you did in your defence that you have said and done nothing which can properly be called an insult to the Court.
Page 10
428
EX.