In 18671
415
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, JOSEPH SEARLE, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Draper's Assistant, make oath and say :-
1. That I was one of the Jury sworn to try the case of OLYPHANT and Others v. Loo Anung 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. 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 in my opinion Mr. POLLARD said nothing and did nothing which could possibly be strained into even an unintentional disrespect to, or contempt of, the Court or Judge, and that neither in his manner, demeanour, nor tone of voice was there anything objectionable, as, while contending firmly for what he advanced, his manner appeared to me to be such as to afford no ground of complaint, and I was astonished when the Chief Justice called on Mr. POLLARD to apologise.
6. That it appeared to me when Mr. POLLARD asked the Chief Justice to tell him what he complained of, that the Chief Justice could not give any other reason than that Mr. POLLARD had said to the Court "that he could not produce a Chinaman as if he were a paper," and I was much surprised to hear this put forward, as the words were spoken by Mr. POLLARD to Mr. WHYTE, and certainly not to the Court at all.
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.
Sworn at Victoria, Hongkong, this ... day of July, A.D. 1867.
Before me
...
Joseph Searle
Md for brotach EX.
Page 420
Page 421
In 19147/07
415
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. 1807.
I, JOSEPH SEARLE, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Draper's Assistant. make oath and say :-
1. That I was one of the Jury sworn to try the case of OLYPHANT and Others 2. Loo Anung 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 AHKUм and Others v. 'No 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. Enward 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 in my opinion Mr. POLLARD said nothing and did nothing which could possibly be strained into even an unintentional disrespect to, or contempt of, the Court or Judge, and that neither in his manner, demeanour, nor tone of voice was there anything objectionable, as, while contending firmly for what he advanced, his manner appeared to me to be such as to afford no ground of complaint, and I was astonished when the Chief Justice called on Mr. POLLARD to apologise.
6. That it appeared to me when Mr. POLLARD asked the Chief Justice to tell him what he complained of, that the Chief Justice could not give any other reason than that Mr. POLLARD had said to the Court "that he could not produce a Chinaman as if he were a paper," and I was much surprised to hear this put forward, as the words were spoken by Mr. POLLARD to Mr. WHYTE, and certainly not to the Court at all.
7. That from the first occasion on which the Chief Justice addressed Mr. POLLARD ON the Thursday, it appeared to me thas his (the Chief Justice's) manner was arbitrary, excited and irritating.
Sworn at Victoria, Hongkong, this
Arckenthe
day of July, a.n., 1867.
Before me
Mlaye
Ms
Joseph Searle
Md for brotach
EX.
Page 420Page 421
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.