His Lordship-I have only to add that in all the cases before me you have not been correct in one--not one, Is there anything more?
Mr. Gibbons-Yes; I have two applications. His Lordship, looking at the papers in the cases, which were applications for letters of administration, said the proceeding must be by petition. He must have things regular now, after all that had passed. It must be by petition.
Mr. Gibbons said his Lordship had authorised the forms he now placed before him.
His Lordship-I did not authorise that printing; you did it without my authority. Mr. Sangster, did not Mr. Alexander always petition for administration?
Mr. Sangster-I don't think so.
His Lordship directed Mr. Sangster to look and see, and said he would follow the practice. In reply to a remark by Mr. Gibbons, he said, "Your irregularities arise from mistake-or something else."
Mr. Gibbons--I don't know what you mean by "something else." You have insulted me on every occasion.
His Lordship-You have insulted me publicly. Mr. Gibbons-I am not aware I have ever insulted your Lordship.
His Lordship-You assert that you are not an officer of this Court under me, under the judges-that is what you have asserted over and over again, and as long as that assertion is made I must exercise my authority.
Mr. Gibbons I must entirely deny that I ever on one occasion said so. If I am not the Registrar of this court I am nothing.
The Chief Justice-The Registrar is a clerk. Mr. Gibbons said he was not his Lordship's clerk, and if he thought that was to be his position he would resign his position at once.
His Lordship-I should be too happy to find you do so.
Mr. Gibbons--I dare say you would.
His Lordship-You are the first official in this Colony for twenty years with whom I have had a word of difference.
Mr. Gibbons---Well, when your Lordship insults me by calling me a clerk I really must reply.
His Lordship then left the bench.
The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, JULY 27TH, 1880.
In undertaking yet further reference to His Lordship the Chief Justice's mode of conducting the business of the Court, we wish it to be understood that it is with both pain and reluctance that we do so, equally as upon the occasions when we have had the opportunity of speaking in laudatory terms of His Lordship and his labours it was with sincere pleasure that we spoke. A perusal of the report, given in another column, of the astonishing and unseemly scene in the Supreme Court yesterday unfortunately makes it clearly apparent that as time advances and the years cling thicker round him, His Lordship, so far from exhibiting the calmness of demeanour in business which may be expected from him after his long experience, manifestly becomes more choleric, more impatient, and less discriminating than ever. Not one of us frail mortals is exempt from infirmities of character, not one of us but is liable to stumble even at very trifling obstacles; but when one stumbles too frequently over impediments which to others are microscopic, the world in general is apt, and justly too, to come to the conclusion that the pedestrian in the walk of life takes less heed to his ways than he rightly should. Of the merits of the squabble we cannot express an opinion--that we leave to professional hands---but of the absolute impropriety of the scene enacted yesterday, even the most indifferent spectator or the most partial of Sir JOHN SMALE's partisans and admirers cannot fail to form a very sound estimate. We have never learned the fons et origo mali of the existing feud between the parties concerned in the scene referred to, therefore in whom the offence lies cannot be arrived at. Yet we are not without some guide whereby to form a judgment; for, while one of the parties is a newly arrived gentleman of whom we know nothing save that he seems a most efficient and industrious officer, and of whom those competent to express an opinion affirm that he is the best Registrar that ever held the office in this Colony, the other is a dignitary subject to ebullitions of passion giving birth to outbursts of intemperate and caustic remarks, some of which have been placed on record in the journals of the Colony. Had these exhibitions of ill-temper been confined to private life a spectator would be justified in thinking them at least undesirable, but when, as in the present instance, they emanate from the seat whence only wisdom, justice, and dignity should flow, it becomes a matter to rouse in the spectator's mind the contending emotions of indignation and compassion; pity for the man, and disapprobation of the judge. As a public journal we do not deal with the individual, but with the holder of the Judicial Office; not Sir JOHN SMALE, but the Chief Justice. His Lordship has from the Bench enunciated many pithy remarks anent the dignity of the Courts of law, and has expressed his determination to uphold that dignity, of the importance of which he has often proved his knowledge in words: would that the same could be said of his actions! The Courts of law have not only a deterrent and punitive purpose, but their design is likewise educational, and it is a fundamental and well-recognised principle that neither correction nor tuition is of avail unless the quarter from which they flow be of a nature calm, and strong, and elevated in tone. This has been the tradition of the Courts of law of England, and, as an almost invariable rule has been supported by practice, so much so that throughout the length and breadth of the globe, and during the whole history of the world, no Courts of Justice have ever attained the exalted standing that the English Courts proudly occupy at this date. This is a noble fact and an elevating tradition: it is with a feeling akin to dismay, therefore, that we see it trailed in the dust. Of the merits of the quarrel we know nothing, but it seems abundantly clear that even if the Registrar has been entirely to blame, the Chief Justice, in entering into an uncomplimentary altercation with his immediate subordinate--one, indeed, whom he designates as his "clerk"-forgot his duty to the high office he occupies, and neglected the maintenance of the dignity of the Bench of which British judges are so rightly jealous. It is impossible to conceive any circumstances under which His Lordship could be justified in permitting, much less being a party to, a disturbance so unseemly and discreditable, and so calculated to subvert order and destroy the prestige of Courts of Justice. It is lamentable that His Lordship should have permitted his asperity such unbridled rein as to publicly indulge in the charge of ignorance against a newly arrived officer and member of the Bar, and otherwise to goad him to an announcement of his disposition to resign his appointment.