450
In the matter of the Petition of EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLARD, Üne 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. 1897.
I, ALEXANDER NOEL BLAKEMAN, of Victoria, in the Colony of Hongkong, Reporter to The Daily Press, Newspaper, make oath and Do solemnly declare:
1. That I was present as such Reporter to The Daily Press, in the Supreme Court of this Colony, on Thursday, the Twenty-seventh day of June last, when the case of OLYPHANT and Others v. Loo AHUNG came on for Trial before the Chief Justice of the said Colony and a Jury, and remained in Court until the adjournment thereof.
2. That I was also present as such Reporter on Saturday, the Twenty-ninth day of June last, in the Supreme Court during the sitting of the said Court.
3. That I was also present as such Reporter in the said Supreme Court on Tuesday, the Second day of July instant, upon the occasion of the delivery of a Judgment by the said Chief Justice against Mr. E. H. POLLARD, Q. C., when that gentleman was fined and suspended from practice for Fourteen days for alleged contempts of Court.
4. That I have read the petition of Mr. E. H. POLLARD herein and it contains a correct and fairly stated account of what passed in the said Supreme Court on the Thursday and Saturday above mentioned.
5. That I was utterly astonished at the manner of the Chief Justice on the said Twenty-seventh day of June, which was excited, intemperate and apparently inimical to Mr. POLLARD without any cause, so far as I could see, and I was also astonished when the Chief Justice called on Mr. POLLARD to apologise, as there was nothing in that gentleman's language, manner, demeanour, or tone of voice which could possibly be looked upon as a contempt of, or insult to, either the Court or the Judge, and that for the past Twelve months I have been constantly in the habit of reporting in the Supreme, and other Courts in this Colony, and owing to Mr POLLARD's very extensive practice therein, am thoroughly acquainted with that gentleman's manner and general demeanour in Court and it is for this reason that I so confidently say as I do above that Mr. POLLARD gave no cause of offence to the Court on that day.
6. That Mr. POLLARD both on the said Thursday the Twenty-seventh and Saturday, the Twenty-ninth of June requested to be informed of what he was accused by the Chief Justice, disavowed any intention at any time to shew disrespect to the Court, and denied having done so, but at the same time expressed his perfect readiness to apologise if he had done wrong in any way, but that the Chief Justice never stated of what he was accused except in one instance, on Thursday, when he made reference to words that he said were addressed to the Bench, but which were jocularly spoken to Mr. WHYTE and not to the Court.
7. That on Tuesday, the Second day of July instant, Mr. POLLARD repeatedly asked the Chief Justice to be allowed to be heard, but the Chief Justice always peremptorily declined to allow him to speak.
8. That on the said Second of July, Mr. POLLARD was subjected by the Chief Justice to most unmerited contumely and humiliation.
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 day of July, A.D. 1867.
Before me
A Noel Blaksmall
5 for Harkey
EX.
450
In the matter of the Petition of EDWARD HUTCHINSON POLLAND, Üne 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, ALEXANDER NOEL BLAKEMAN, of Victoria, in the Colony of Hongkong, Reporter to The Daily Press, Newspaper, make outh and Do solemnly
annd
sincerely
declare:
1. That I was present as such Reporter to The Daily Press, in the Supreme Court of this Colony, on Thursday, the Twenty-seventh day of June last, when the case of OLYPHANT and Others v. Loo AHUNG came on for Trial before the Chief Justice of the said Colony and a Jury, and remained in Court until the adjuurument thereof.
2. That I was also present as such Reporter on Saturday, the Twenty-ninth day of June last, in the Supreme Court during the sitting of the said Court.
3. That I was also present as such Reporter in the said Supreme Court on Tuesday, the Second day of July instant, upon the occasion of the delivery of a Judgment by the said Chief Justice against. Mr. E. H. POLLARD, Q. C., when that gentleman was fined and suspended from practice for Fourteen days for alleged contempts of Court-
4. That I have read the petition of Mr. E. H. POLLARD herein and it contains a correct and fairly stated account of what passed in the said Supreme Court on the Thursday and Saturday above mentioned.
5. That I was utterly astonished at the manner of the Chief Justice on the said Twenty-seventh day of June, which was excited, intemperate and apparently inimical to Mr. POLLARD without any cause, so far as I could see, and I was also astonished when the Chief Justice called on Mr. POLLARD to apologise, as there was nothing in that gentleman's language, manner, demeanour, or tone of voice which could possibly be looked upon as a contempt of, or insult to, either the Court or the Judge, and that for the past Twelve months I have been constantly in the habit of reporting in the Supreme, and other Courts in this Colony, and owing to Mr POLLARD's very extensive practice therein, am thoroughly acquainted with that gentleman's manner and general demeanour in Court and it is for this reason that I so confidently say as I do above that Mr. POLLARD gave no cause of offence to the Court on that day. 6. That Mr. POLLARD both on the said Thursday the Twenty-seventh and Saturday, the Twenty-ninth of June requested to be informed of what he was accused by the Chief Justice, disavowed any intention at any time to shew disrespect to the Court, and denied having done so, but at the same time expressed his perfect readiness to apologise if he had done wrong in any way, but that the Chief Justice never stated of what he was accused except in one instance, on Thursday, when he made reference to words that he said were addressed to the Bench, but which were jocularly spoken to Mr. WHYTE and not to the Court.
7. That on Tuesday, the Second day of July instant, Mr. POLLARD repeatoilly asked the Chief Justice to be allowed to be heard, but the Chief Justice always peremptorily declined to allow him to speak.
8. That on the said Second of July, Mr. POLLARD was subjected by the Chief Justice to most unmerited contumely and humiliation.
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
day of July, A.D. 1867.
Before me
A Noel Blaksmall
5 for Harkey
EX.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.