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
Do solemnly and sincerely declare :-
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 CHAF 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. 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 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. WHITE, 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.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Provisions of an Act made and passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King WILLIAM THE FOURTH, intituled, “An Act to repeal an Act of the then present Session of Parliament, intituled,' An Act for the more effectual abolition of Oaths and Affirmations taken and made in various Departments of the State, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof, and for the more entire suppression of voluntary and extrajudicial Oaths and Affidavits; and to make other Provisions for the abolition of unnecessary Oaths."
Declared at Victoria, Hongkong, this 2nd day of July, A.D. 1867.
Before me
Joseph Lenole
J.P. for Hongkong
>
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, maka-peth
Do solemnly and sincerely declare :-
1. That I was one of the Jury sworn to try the case of OLYPHANT and Others e. 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 e. 'Na CHAF 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. 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 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. WHITE, 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.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Provisions of an Act made and passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King WILLIAM THE FOURTH, intituled, “An Act to repeal an Act of the then present Session of "Parliament, intituled,' An Act for the more effectual abolition of Oaths and Affirmations taken and "made in various Departments of the State, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof, and for the "more entire suppression of voluntary and extrajudicial Oaths and Affidavits; and to make other "Provisions for the abolition of unnecessary Oaths."
Declared at Victoria, Honghong, this 2.
day of July, A.D. 1867.
Before me
丈
Joseph Lenole
NP. for Anything
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.