19147/4
412
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.
1, HENRY WILLIAM DAVIS, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Bill, Bullion and Share Broker, make oath and say :
1. That I was one of the Jury sworn to try the case of OLYPHANT and Others v. Loo AHUNG before the Chief Justice of the said Colony at the Supreme Court House, Hongkong, on Thursday, the Twenty-seventh day of June last.
2. That I was also one of the Jury sworn to try the case of CHUN AHKUM and Others v. Na CHAP TENG before the said Chief Justice at the said Court House, on Saturday, the Twenty-ninth day of June last, and that in both cases Mr. EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD, Q.C., and Mr. JOHN CHARLES WHYTE, appeared as Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants, respectively.
3. That I have read the Petition of Mr. EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD herein and that it contains a correct and fairly stated account of what passed in the said Supreme Court on the Thursday and Saturday above mentioned.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. That there was nothing in what Mr. POLLARD said or did, that I ever thought could be looked on as a 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.
7. That from the first occasion on which the Chief Justice addressed Mr. POLLARD on the Thursday, it appeared to me that his (the Chief Justice's) manner was arbitrary, excited, and irritating.
8. That I was present in Court on Tuesday, the Second of July instant, when the Chief Justice delivered a Judgment against Mr. POLLARD, and the latter gentleman was certainly treated by the Judge in a way calculated to wound the feelings of every one, and to humiliate and insult Mr. POLLARD to a very great extent.
Sworn at Victoria, Hongkong, this
Sixtenth day of July, A.D., 1867.
Before me
Henry F. Davies
Mayor I. Fothengay
EX
19147/4
412
In the matter of the Petition of Euward RuroHINSON 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.
1, HENRY WILLIAM DAVIS, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Bill, Bullion and Share Broker, make oath and say :---
1. That I was one of the Jury sworn to try the case of OLYPHANT and Others v. Loo AHUNG before the Chief Justice of the said Colony at the Supreme Court House, Hongkong, on Thursday, the Twenty-seventh day of June last.
2. That I was also one of the Jury sworn to try the case of CHUN AHKUM and Others ». 'Na CHAP TENG before the said Chief Justice at the said Court House, on Saturday, the Twenty-ninth day of June last, and that in both cases Mr. EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD, Q. C., und Mr. Jons CHARLES WHYTE, appeared as Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants, respectively,
3. That I have read the Petition of Mr. EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD herein and that it contains a correct and fairly stated account of what passed in the said Supreme Court on the Thurs- day and Saturday above mentioned.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. That there was nothing in what Mr. POLLARD said or did, that I ever thought could be looked on as a 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.
7. That from the first occasion on which the Chief Justice addressed Mr. POLLARD on the Thursday, it appeared to me that his (the Chief Justice's) manner was arbitrary, excited, and irritating.
8. That I was present in Court on Tuesday, the Second of July instant, when the Chief Justice delivered a Judgment against Mr. POLLARD, and the latter gentleman was certainly treated by the Judge in a way calculated to wound the feelings of every one, and to humiliate and insult Mr. POLLARD to a very great extent.
Sworn at Victoria, Hongkong, this
Sixtenth day of July, a.D., 1867.
Before me
Hammy bro Davies
Maye I. fotoghey
EX
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.