16
reason, adjourning into Chambers, on which I made a statement explanatory of my reason, in the presence of three persons, of whom two were personal friends and one a reporter, who reported (though very incorrectly) what I said in the newspaper. The Chief Justice (who was not present), thereupon charged me with deliberate insubordination, although what I said was not in my character of Registrar, but in that of a litigant (personally responsible as he had held me to be), who had been denied a hearing in public. On the following day the Puisne Judge came into Court and made a statement, in which he endeavoured to show that the Judges had a right to hear every application in private, and that no one could claim, as of right, to be heard in public: he afterwards sent for me, and said he would take my cases if I would attend him in Chambers. As I had always been treated with courtesy and respect by him, I at once agreed (reserving my rights) to attend in Chambers, although I suggested that I thought it would be advisable in the interest of the other parties concerned, that the cases should be heard in public. Accordingly the Court adjourned into Chambers, and no sooner was the nature of the first application explained, than the Puisne Judge at once admitted that it was more proper to be heard in open Court, which was afterwards done and the cases were there disposed of.
I was afterwards called upon by the Governor to answer the charge of deliberate insubordination.
On October 23, I wrote in reply that I objected to answer any charge made by the Chief Justice against me until I had had an opportunity of proving the previous charge which I had made against him.
I was then served with an order for payment of costs in the matter of Ng Akui, in which a sale previously ordered by the Chief Justice had been stopped by him: soon afterwards I was served with another order for costs in the matter of Ho Kwong Ming, in which a sale had been stopped in like manner.
17
271
On October 29 I was interdicted from office by the Governor, and finally suspended on December 31. I then applied for leave of absence, which was granted, and I left the colony by the mail of January 12, 1881, having previously ascertained that all the correspondence and documents connected with my suspension, were ready for transmission to England.
On arrival, I found that they had not been sent, nor do they appear to have been sent until nearly a month after I left. In the meantime the Chief Justice appears to have announced his intention to retire.
Just prior to leaving the colony a pamphlet was given to me, by which it appears that in 1867 (the date of its publication), the Chief Justice had an altercation with Mr. E. H. Pollard (then one of Her Majesty's Counsel in Hong Kong, and now practising at the English Bar), who complained to the Governor, Sir R. G. McDonnell. In his letter dated July 4, 1867, Mr. Pollard, after setting out the facts (which appear to have been uncontradicted), says, "I therefore accuse the Chief Justice of unjust and tyrannical conduct in the exercise of his functions, and of having misrepresented facts to enable him to perpetrate under colour of his office, an act of malicious injustice to me, which I assert renders him unfit to be entrusted with judicial power, or to fill the high office of Chief Justice."
"I believe I have no appeal to any judicial tribunal in existence, and I distinctly accuse the Chief Justice of having abused his power and of unfitness for office."
The Governor (Sir R. G. McDonnell), in his answer to Mr. Pollard's complaint, dated July 5, 1867, says, "It is quite evident that the matter cannot now rest where it is without imperilling the character of all law proceedings in
OY!
16
reason, adjourning into Chambers, on which I made a statement explanatory of my reason, in the presence of three persons, of whom two were personal friends and one a reporter, who reported (though very incorrectly) what I said in the newspaper. The Chief Justice (who was not present), thereupon charged me with deliberate insubordi- nation, although what I said was not in my character of Registrar, but in that of a litigant (personally responsible as he had held me to be), who had been denied a hearing in public. On the following day the Puisne Judge came into Court and made a statement, in which he endeavoured to show that the Judges had a right to hear every applica- tion in private, and that no one could claim, as of right, to be heard in public: he afterwards sent for me, and said he would take my cases if I would attend him in Cham- bers. As I had always been treated with courtesy and respect by him, I at once agreed (reserving my rights) to attend in Chambers, although I suggested that I thought it would be advisable in the interest of the other parties concerned, that the cases should be heard in public. Accordingly the Court adjourned into Chambers, and no sooner was the nature of the first application explained, than the Puisne Judge at once admitted that it was more proper to be heard in open Court, which was afterwards done and the cases were there disposed of.
I was afterwards called upon by the Governor to answer the charge of deliberate insubordination.
On October 23, I wrote in reply that I objected to answer any charge made by the Chief Justice against me until I had had an opportunity of proving the previous charge which I had made against him.
I was then served with an order for payment of costs in the matter of Ng Akui, in which a sale previously ordered by the Chief Justice had been stopped by him: soon afterwards I was served with another order for costs in the
17
271
matter of Ho Kwong Ming, in which a sale had been stopped in like manner.
On October 29 I was interdicted from office by the Governor, and finally suspended on December 31. I then applied for leave of absence, which was granted, and I left the colony by the mail of January 12, 1881, having previously ascertained that all the correspondence and documents connected with my suspension, were ready for transmission to England.
On arrival, I found that they had not been sent, nor do they appear to have been sent until nearly a month after I left. In the meantime the Chief Justice appears to have announced his intention to retire.
Just prior to leaving the colony a pamphlet was given to me, by which it appears that in 1867 (the date of its publication), the Chief Justice had an altercation with Mr. E. H. Pollard (then one of Her Majesty's Counsel in Hong Kong, and now practising at the English Bar), who com- In his plained to the Governor, Sir R. G. McDonnell. letter dated July 4, 1867, Mr. Pollard, after setting out the facts (which appear to have been uncontradicted), says, "I therefore accuse the Chief Justice of unjust and tyrannical conduct in the exercise of his functions, and of having misrepresented facts to enable him to perpetrate under colour of his office, an act of malicious injustice to me, which I assert renders him unfit to be entrusted with judicial power, or to fill the high office of Chief Justice."
"I believe I have no appeal to any judicial tribunal in existence, and I distinctly accuse the Chief Justice of having abused his power and of unfitness for office."
The Governor (Sir R. G. McDonnell), in his answer to Mr. Pollard's complaint, dated July 5, 1867, says, "It is quite evident that the matter cannot now rest where it is without imperilling the character of all law proceedings in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.