182 9147/47
410
and
In the matter of the Petition of EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD, One of Her Majesty's Counsel for the Colony of Hongkong, against The Honorable the Chief Justice of the said Colony, and against the Sentence passed upon the said Petitioner by the said Chief Justice, on the Second day of July, A.D. 1867.
I, ETHAN ALLAN HITCHCOCK, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Merchant, make oath and say,
that:-
1. I was one of the Plaintiffs in the case of OLYPHANT and Others v. Loo AHUNG, which was brought on for trial before the Chief Justice of the said Colony, and a Jury, on Thursday, the Twenty-seventh day of June last past, and until the adjournment of the Court on that day, I remained in Court, seated next to the Plaintiffs' Solicitor, and two seats from Mr. POLLARD, Q.C., the Plaintiffs' Counsel.
2. I have read the above-named Petition of Mr. POLLARD, and the account therein contained of what took place in Court on that said Thursday is strictly true and is stated in a very temperate manner.
3. That I was attending carefully to everything that passed on the Thursday, and I know that the Interpreter got very confused about the answers given by the Comprador (as witness) to Mr. POLLARD'S questions as to what the Defendant said about the four samples and the bulk of the Sugar (about which the action was brought), and that it was only then that Mr. POLLARD put leading questions, through the Interpreter, and they were, in my opinion, necessary to clear up the evident misunderstanding between the witness and the Interpreter.
4. That I only on one occasion heard any objection to Mr. POLLARD'S mode of putting questions to the said witness, and that so far from persisting in it, he at once altered the shape of the question, so as to meet or avoid the objection.
5. That there was nothing in what Mr. POLLARD said or did, that I ever thought could be looked on as contempt of, or disrespectful to, the Court in any way, and I was much surprised to hear the Chief Justice say that Mr. POLLARD ought to apologise.
6. That from the very first occasion on which the Chief Justice spoke to Mr. POLLARD, his (the Chief Justice's) manner was arbitrary, intemperate, and insulting and it appeared to me as if he was trying to force a quarrel upon Mr. POLLARD, which the latter gentleman seemed anxious to avoid.
7. That I was in Court on Tuesday the Second day of July instant, when the Chief Justice delivered a Judgment against Mr. POLLARD, and the manner of the Chief Justice was insulting and malevolent, the object being, apparently, to degrade Mr. POLLARD in the eyes of the Public, and I do not think that any one could believe a person, occupying the position of a Judge upon the Bench, could have so far forgotten all sense of propriety, unless he or they had seen the animus and ill-feeling displayed by the said Chief Justice on that day.
Sworn at Victoria, Hongkong, this
Sixteenth day of July, A.D., 1867.
Before me
May
Ms for Hong Kong
EX.
182 9147/47
410
and
In the matter of the Petition of EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD, One of Her Majesty's Counsel for the Colony of Hongkong, against The Honorable the Chief Justice of the said Colony, and against the Sentence passed upon the said Petitioner by the said Chief Justice, on the Second day of July, A.D. 1867.
I, ETHAN ALLAN HITCHCOCK, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Merchant, make oath say,
that:-
1. I was one of the Plaintiffs in the case of OLYPHANT and Others v. Loo AHUNG, which was brought on for trial before the Chief Justice of the said Colony, and a Jury, on Thursday, the Twenty-seventh day of June last past, and until the adjournment of the Court on that day, I remained in Court, seated next to the Plaintiffs' Solicitor, and two seats from Mr. POLLARD, Q.C., the Plaintiffs' Counsel.
2. I have read the above named Petition of Mr. POLLARD, and the account therein contained of what took place in Court on that said Thursday is strictly true and is stated in a very temperate
manner.
3. That I was attending carefully to every thing that passed on the Thursday, and I know that the Interpreter got very confused about the answers given by the Comprador (as witness) to Mr. POLLARD'S questions as to what the Defendant said about the four samples and the bulk of the Sugar (about which the action was brought), and that it was only then that Mr. POLLARD put leading questions, through the Interpreter, and they were, in my opinion, necessary to clear up the evident misunderstanding between the witness and the Interpreter.
4. That I only on one occasion heard any objection to Mr. POLLARD'S mode of putting questions to the said witness, and that so far from persisting in it, he at once altered the shape of the question, so as to meet or avoid the objection.
5. That there was nothing in what Mr. POLLARD said or did, that I ever thought could be looked on as contempt of, or disrespectful to, the Court in any way, and I was much surprised to hear the Chief Justice say that Mr. POLLARD ought to apologise.
6. That from the very first occasion on which the Chief Justice spoke to Mr. POLLARD, his (the Chief Justice's) manner was arbitrary, intemperate, and insulting and it appeared to me as if he was trying to force a quarrel upon Mr. POLLARD, which the latter gentleman seemed anxious to avoid.
7. That I was in Court on Tuesday the Second day of July instant, when the Chief Justice delivered a Judgment against Mr. POLLARD, and the manner of the Chief Justice was insulting and malevolent, the object being, apparently, to degrade Mr. POLLARD in the eyes of the Public, and I do not think that any one could believe a person, occupying the position of a Judge upon the Bench, could have so far forgotten all sense of propriety, unless he or they had seen the animus and ill-feeling displayed by the said Chief Justice on that day.
Sworn at Victoria, Hongkong, this
Sixteenth day of July, A.D., 1867.
Before me
May
Ms for Hongthing
EX.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.