Mr. Pollard (dictating).-Being addressed by the officer of the court, and not by the bench to stand, while I was being addressed by the bench, I seek to know in what capacity I am called upon—as a member of the bar, or as a defendant. In what capacity I am to look upon myself. I wish to add that I put this question not to show any disrespect, although it might have been taken so, but as it clearly affects my right and position.
The Chief-Justice then handed the Registrar a slip, which was read as follows:—The contempt is greater when the offender is a barrister as an officer of this court therefore you are bound to aid the court in the administration of justice.
Mr. Pollard.—I deny that I am an officer of this court.
Chief Justice.—Mr. Masson, put that down; Mr. Pollard denies that he is an officer of this court.
Mr. Pollard—Attorneys are officers of the court, but I belong to a separate profession, and am officer of no court under the sun!
Chief Justice.—Then I will alter "officer of the court," to "aider in the administration of justice."
Mr. Pollard.—I have no objection to that.
Chief-Justice.—Is there a roll of this court! Is Mr. Whyte upon it.
Mr. Whyte—I have been admitted, my Lord, to this court, but have never signed the roll.
Chief-Justice.—I thought it was so.
The roll of the court was here handed to the Chief-Justice by Mr. Masson.
Chief Justice.—Mr. Pollard's name is on the roll.
Mr. Pollard.—As barrister, my Lord.
Chief Justice.—I presume all protest is now at an end. There being no reply, he continued:—
Mr. Pollard,—After several delays, it now becomes my painful duty to deliver the decision of this court on your conduct on Thursday, the 27th of June last. These delays have been interposed in order to give you time to reflect calmly on your conduct, and by submission and apology to render the exercise of the indisputable authority of this court to punish for contempts towards it unnecessary. In expressing what appears to be my duty on the present occasion, I shall in substance adopt the language of the Chief Justice Lord Tenterden, of Mr. Justice Bailey, of Mr. Justice Holroyd, of the Chief Justice Lord Winford in 1821, preferring to use language frequently since repeated always with approbation to any less forcible words of my own selection. Their language is;—in the case of an insult to himself, it is not on his own account that he commits or imposes a fine, for that is a consideration which should never enter his mind. But, though he may despise the insult, it is a duty which he owes to the station to which he belongs, not to suffer those things to pass which will make him despicable in the eyes of others. No man who pretends to any knowledge of the law can doubt that a judge of a court of record has authority to fine or imprison for any contempt committed in the face of the court. From the earliest period of our history, this authority has been exercised.” Every man who comes into a court of justice, either as a party or barrister, must know that decency is to be observed there, that respect is to be paid to the judge. Of the power of a judge to fine for contempt I have not the least doubt. When a case is conducted by counsel they know perfectly well what the rules of law are, and they have that regard for their own character which generally prevents them from doing anything which may break in upon the rules of decency and decorum.
Chief-Justice Abbott says:—"If I thought that the decision I am about to pronounce, could have the effect of restraining any barrister from exercising a bold as well as a legitimate course of advocacy, I would pause even longer than I have done before I pronounced that decision. The question, indeed, is a momentous one. It is absolutely a question whether the law of the land shall or shall not continue to be properly administered. For it is utterly impossible that the law can be so administered, if those who are charged with the duty of administering it have not power to prevent instances of indecorum from occurring in their presence. That power has been vested in the judges, not for their personal protection, but for that of the public. And a judge will depart from his bounden duty, he tortures to use it when occasions arise which call for its exercise." I have now quoted enough to show that this court has the power of punishment by fine or imprisonment, and in the case of a barrister, as the learned Queen's Counsel has drawn a distinction between an attorney and a barrister, I would refer him to these cases. Of the power of a judge to fine for a contempt of court, I have not the least doubt. The duty to punish contempts of court and the right of the court to fine and imprison the offender, and on the rare case of his being a barrister to suspend him from practice, being proved by abundant cases, it is my duty merely to decide that you were guilty of a contempt of this court on Thursday, the 27th of June last. It is thought to be a rare case to suspend a barrister from practice, but as I have said, there are many such cases. I can refer you to a case in which then and there for contempt of court, a barrister had his gown by order of the court pulled off his back. It is very amusing, Mr. Pollard, but it is law.
Mr. Pollard, I know the case, my Lord.
Chief Justice.—It is more satisfactory, however, that I should go into a detail as well as I can and so far as I deem necessary of the circumstances as they occurred. In the case, then, of Olyphant and Others v. Loo-a-Hing, you opened the case for the plaintiff as a breach of warranty to ship sugar to Shanghai of a specified quality. Your first Chinese witness, the compradore of the plaintiffs, proved the signature by the defendant to a contract in English, and that he had translated the document to the defendant. In the course of that examination you persistently, though more than once stopped by me, put leading questions to the compradore. You stare very much, Mr. Pollard.—
Mr. Pollard.—It is a stare of astonishment, my Lord.—
And I felt that under his master's eye, that master sitting close to you, and with your peremptory leading questions one sort of answers only could be expected from him. I at length again objected to your persisting in putting such leading questions, saying to you, "Why, he is your own witness." Your answer to me was inferentially insisting that you had been right, “The interpreter is not." This answer offended propriety. It inferred an imputation on the interpreter, who has been a zealous and honest interpreter for some seven years, and it ignored the rule being as it always has been imperative as to a Chinese as well as to an English witness. Your answer was pointed and cut, and was apparently made to raise, and only to raise, a laugh against me. This was your first contempt of court on which I said nothing then. The case proceeded. Mr. Whyte asked the compradore of your clients in cross-examination questions to show that he had examined the sugar as they were packed by direction of the plaintiffs so as to show an approval by the plaintiffs of the sugars before they were shipped. So far as it went the evidence of plaintiffs' compradore tended to sustain the defence. You with unnecessary vehemence insisted to me that this evidence could not be received. I decided to receive it, and your demeanour was to say the least offensive and disrespectful in consequence. It appeared to be a point with the defendant to show that the plaintiffs by their servants had approved of each package of sugar before it was shipped, and it was extracted from your clients' compradore that when the compradore was absent a trusted coolie of the plaintiffs was present. Mr. Whyte, for defendant asked where that coolie was. Thereupon I said to you that, as he was a servant of the plaintiffs, you should produce him in court. Thereupon you turned to me, and looking me steadfastly in the face you said with a scornful expression of countenance, our eyes meeting, and in a discourteous and defiant manner, He is not a piece of paper to be produced in court. Let the defendant subpoena him in the usual way. On that I, considering that the defendant was a Chinaman, said to this effect, Do you mean, Mr. Pollard, to put them to the expense and difficulty of finding and subpoenaing your own servant. Upon this you with vehemence of tone and manner said to me, I will put only those witnesses into the box, which I as counsel for the plaintiffs think fit. I will not be dictated to or talked down by any one as to what I am to do. I was taken aback, and said I was not dictating to you.
Page 430
EX.
Mr. Pollard (dictating).-Being addressed by the officer of the court, and not by the bench to stand, while I was being addressed by the bench, I seek to know in what capacity I am called upon-as a member of the bar, or as a de- fendaut. In what capacity I am to look upon myself. I wish to add that I put this question not to show any disrespect, although it might have been taken so, but as it clearly affects my right and position.
The Chief-Justice then handed the Registrar a slip, which was read as follows:--The contempt is greater when the offender is a barrister as an officer of this court therefore you are bound to aid the court in the administration of justice.
Mr. Pollard.-I deuy that I am an officer of this court.
Chief Justice.--Mr. Masson, put that down; Mr. Pollard denies that he is an officer of this court.
Mr. Pollard-Attorneys are officers of the court, but I belong to à separate profession, and am officer of no court under the sun!
Chief Justice.--Then I will alter "officer of the court," to "aider in the administration of justice."
Mr. Pollard.I have no objection to that. Chief-Justice.-Is there a roll of this court!
Is Mr. Whyte upon it.
Mr. Whyte-T have been admitted, my Lord, to this court, but have never signed the roll.
Chief-Justice.I thought it wna so.
The roll of the court was here handed to the Chief-Justice by Mr. Masson.
Chief Justice.-Mr. Pollard's name is on the roll.
Mr. Pollard.As barrister, my Lord.
Chief Justice.--I presume all protest is now i
nt an end. There being no reply, he conti- nued:-
Mr. Pollard,-After several delays, it now ! becomes my painful duty to deliver the decision of this court on your conduct on Thursday, the 27th of June last. These delays bave been interposed in order to give you time to reflect calmly on your conduct, and by submission and apology to render the exercise of the indisputa- ble authority of this court to punish for con- ' tempts towards it unnecessary. In expressing what appears to be my duty on the present occa sion, I shall in substance adopt the language of the Chief Justice Lord Tenterden, of Mr. Justice Bailey, of Mr. Justice Holroyd, of the Chief Justice Lord Winford in 1821, preferring to use language frequently since repeated always with approbation to any less forcible words of my own selection. Their language is;-in the case of an insult to himself, it ia nut on his. own account that he commits or imposes a fine, for that is a consideration which should never enter his mind. But, though he may despise the insult, it is a duty which he owes to the station to which be belongs, not to suffer those things to pase which will make him despicable in the eyes of others. No man who pretends to any knowledge of the law can doubt that a judge of a court of record has authority to fine or im- prison for any contempt committed in the face of the court. From the earliest period of our history, this authority has been exercised.” Every man who comes into a court of justice, either as a party or barrister, mast know that decency is to be observed there, that respect is to be paid to the judge. Of the power of a judge to fue for contempt 1 have not the least doubt. When & case is con- ducted by counsel they know perfectly well what the rules of law are, and they have that regard for their own character which generally pre- vents them from doing anything which may break in upon the rules of decency and decorum. Chief-Justice Abbott says:-"If I thought that the decision I am about to pronounce, could have the effect of restraining any barrister from exercising a bold as well as
a legitimate course of advocacy, I would pauKE even longer than I have done before I pro- nounced that decision. The question, indeed, is a momentous one. It is absolutely a question whether the law of the land shall or shall not continue to be properly administered. For it is utterly impossible that the law can be so ad- ministered, if those who are charged with the duty of administering it have not power to prevent instances of indecorum from occurring in their presence. That power has been veated in the judges, not for their personal protection, but for that of the public. And a
judge will
}
depart from his bounden auty, he tortears to use it when occasions arise which call for its exercise." 1 have now quoted enough to show that this court has the power of punish- ment by fine or imprisonment, and in the case of a barrister, as the learned Queen's Counsel bas drawn a distinction between an attorney and a barrister, I would refer him to these cases. Of the power of a judge to fine for a con- tempt of court, I have not the least doubt. The duty to punish contempts of court and the right of the court to fine and imprison the offender, and on the rare case of his being a barrister to suspend him from practice, being proved by abundant cases, it is my duty merely to decide that you were guilty of a contempt of this court on Thursday, the 27th of June last. It is thought to be a rare case to suspend a barrister from practice, but as I have said. there are many such cases. I can refer you to a case in which then and there for contempt of court, a barrister had his gown by order of the court pulled off his back. It is very amusing. Mr. Pollard, but it is law.
Mr. Pollard, I know the case, my Lord.
Chief Justice. It is more satisfactory, how- ever, that I should go into a detail as well as I can and so far as I deem necessary of the circum- stances as they occurred. In the case, Į then, of Olyphant and Others # Loo- a-Hing, you opened the case for the plaintiff as a breach of warranty to ship sugar to Shanghai of a specified quality. Your first Chinese witness, the compradore of the plain- tiffs, proved the signature by the defendant to a contract in English, and that be had translated the document to the defendant. In the course of that examination you persistently, though more than once stopped by me, put leading questions to the compradore. You stare very much, Mr. Follard.--
Mr. Pollard.--It is a stare of astonishment, my Lord.-
And I felt that under his masters eye that master setting close to you, and with your pe. remptory leading questions one sort of answers only could be expected from him. I at length again objected to your persisting in putting such leading questions, saying to you, "Why, he is your own witness " Your answer to me was inferen. tially insisting that you had been right, “The interpreter is not." This answer offended pro- priety. It inferred an imputation on the in- terpreter, who has been a zealous and honest interpreter for some seven years, and it ignored the rule being as it always has been imperative as to a Chinese as well as to an English witness. Your answer was pointed and cut, and was ap- parently made to raise, and only to raise, a laugh againstine. This was your first contempt, of court · on which I said nothing then. The case pro- ceeded. Mr. Whyte asked the compradore of your clicata in cross-examination questions to show that he had examined the sugar as they were packed by direction of the plaintiffs so as to show an approval by the plaintiffs of the sugars before they were shipped. So far as it went the evidence of plaintiffs, compradore tended to sustain the defence. You with unnecessary vehemence insis ted to me that this evidence could not be receiv- ed. I decided to receive it, and your demeanour was to say the least offensive and disrespectful in consequence. It appeared to be a point with the defendant to show that the plaintiffs by their servants had approved of each package of sugar before it was shipped, and it was extracted from your clients' compradore that when the compradore was absent a trusted coolie of the plaintiffs was present. Mr. Whyte, for defendant asked where that coolie was. Thereupon I said to you that, as he was a servant of the plaintiffs 'you should produce him in court. Thereupon you turned to me, and looking me steadfastly in the face you said with a scornful expression of conn- tenance, our eyes meeting, and in a discourteou and defiant manner. He is not a piece of paper to be produced in court. Let the defen- dant subpoena bim in the usual way. On that I considering that the defendant was a Chinaman, said to this effect, Do you mean Mr. Pollard, to put them to the expense; and difficulty of finding and subpoenaing your own servant. Upon this you with vehemence of tone and manner said to nie, I will put only those wit nesses into the box, which I as counsel for the I will not be dictated to or plaintiffs think fit. talked down by any one as to what I am to do. I was taken aback, and said I was not dictating
430
EX.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.