CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7] — Page 422

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

829147/4

417

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.v. 1887.

1, GOTTFRIED Carl Rodarz, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Storekeeper, 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 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 above mentioned.

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 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.

5. 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. WYRTS, and certainly not to the Court at all.

6. 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 Eighteenth day of July, A.D., 1887.

Before me

J.P.

Gottfried Carl Friedrich Rodatz.

EX.

Edit History

2026-05-19 19:37:03 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
829147/4 417 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.v. 1887. 1, GOTTFRIED Carl Rodarz, of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Storekeeper, 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 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 above mentioned. 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 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. 5. 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. WYRTS, and certainly not to the Court at all. 6. 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 Eighteenth day of July, A.D., 1887. Before me J.P. Gottfried Carl Friedrich Rodatz. EX.
Baseline (Original)
! 829147/4 417 In the matter of the Petition of EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD, Öne 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.v. 1887. 1, GOTTFRIED Cane Rodarz, of Victoria în the Colony of Hongkong, Storekeeper, 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 have read the Petition of Mr. EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD herein and that it contains a correct und fairly stated account of what passed in the said Supreme Court on the Thurs- day above mentioned. 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 the evident misunderstanding between the witness and the Interpreter. up 4. 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. 5. 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. WHYrs, and certainly not to the Court at all. 6. 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 Aritkeenth day of July, A.D., 1867. Before me Map S.P. Gottfried Carl Friedrich 3 for Hongkong. Rodatr. EX.
2026-05-19 19:37:03 · Baseline
View content

!

829147/4

417

In the matter of the Petition of EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD, Öne 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.v. 1887.

1, GOTTFRIED Cane Rodarz, of Victoria în the Colony of Hongkong, Storekeeper, 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 have read the Petition of Mr. EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD herein and that it contains a correct und fairly stated account of what passed in the said Supreme Court on the Thurs- day above mentioned.

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

the evident misunderstanding between the witness and the Interpreter.

up

4. 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.

5. 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. WHYrs, and certainly not to the Court at all.

6. 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

Aritkeenth day of July, A.D., 1867.

Before me

Map

S.P.

Gottfried Carl Friedrich

3 for Hongkong.

Rodatr.

EX.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.