E. N. POLLARD, Q.C.
45820
The following extract from a newspaper record of August 18, 1870, gives us an inkling of Mr. Pollard's occasional relations with the Bench, as well as the esteem in which he was held by the general public:
"In Mr. Falconer's shop may be seen the watch about to be presented to Mr. Pollard. This watch was purchased with the proceeds of a subscription by 100 friends, on his being sentenced to pay a fine imposed on him for Contempt of Court, which sentence was afterwards reversed, on appeal to the Privy Council."
We learn from the old chronicles that as far back as 1861 there had been a "passage" between Mr. Pollard and Mr. (afterwards Sir) John Smale, at first Attorney General and subsequently Chief Justice of Hong Kong. This "breeze" occurred in the course of a case in which a British subject who had been fined and imprisoned by order of a British Consular officer in Japan, successfully claimed damages (Moss v. Alcock).
Some years later what is described as a painful scene occurred on July 2, 1867, when Mr. Pollard was admonished by the Judge, sentenced to a fine of $200 and suspended from practice for two weeks, on being pronounced guilty on six separate counts of contempt of court. We find in one account of the affair that:
"The tone and manner in which the Chief Justice on this occasion addressed the troublesome but highly popular barrister whom he kept standing before him while he lectured him, aroused the indignation of the whole community. The fine was forthwith provided for by a public subscription list, signed by more than a hundred persons of all classes of local society. Mr. Pollard appealed to the Governor (Sir R. G. Macdonnell), who declined to interfere and advised him to petition Her Majesty the Queen. In August, 1868, the decision of the Privy Council was received, indicating a complete defeat of the Chief Justice, as not one of the six acts charged against Mr. Pollard was held to amount to contempt of court. The fine was remitted and the sentence reversed, but the Chief Justice was not silenced but continued the legal warfare in a more subdued form."
Actually this case, with the Privy Council's ruling, formed one of the leading causes of the time, and established the important legal principle that a man cannot be convicted on any count of contempt without being specifically told what the contempt consists of and being given an opportunity to defend himself against the charge.
Mr. Pollard acted as Attorney General in 1869, and shortly afterwards was appointed to the Executive Council.
He had come originally from Australia, arriving in the Colony in 1847, and being appointed a Queen's Counsel in 1865. He took his final departure from the Colony in June, 1870, and after his arrival in England was one of the counsel engaged in the famous Tichborne Case, afterwards settling in the mother country and entering into private practice there. It is recorded of him that he was gazetted a bankrupt in London in 1874, but shortly afterwards obtained his discharge. He certainly appears to have provided a great deal of excitement in otherwise prosaic court proceedings, and on his departure the local legal atmosphere seems to have settled down to a more tranquil state.
E. N. POLLARD, Q.C.
45820
The following extract from a newspaper record of August 18, 1870, gives us an inkling of Mr. Pollard's occasional relations with the Bench, as well as the esteem in which he was held by the general public:
"In Mr. Falconer's shop may be seen the watch about to be presented to Mr. Pollard, This watch was purchased with the proceeds of a subscription by 100 friends, on his being sentenced to pay a fine imposed on him for Contempt of Court, which sentence was afterwards reversed, on appeal to the Privy Council."
!
We learn from the old chronicles that as far back as 1861 there had been a "passage" between Mr. Pollard and Mr. (after- wards Sir) John Smale, at first Attorney General and subsequently Chief Justice of Hong Kong. This "breeze" occurred in the course of a case in which a British subject who had been fined and imprisoned by order of a British Consular officer in Japan, successfully claimed damages (Moss v. Alcock). Some years later what is described as a painful scene occurred on July 2, 1867, when Mr. Pollard was admonished by the Judge, sentenced to a fine of $200 and suspended from practice for two weeks, on being pronounced guilty on six separate counts of contempt of court. We find in one account of the affair that:
"The tone and manner in which the Chief Justice on this occasion addressed the troublesome but highly popular barrister whom he kept standing before him while he lectured him, aroused the indignation of the whole community. The fine was forthwith provided for by a public subscription list, signed by more than a hundred persons of all classes of local society. Mr. Pollard appealed to the Governor (Sir R. G. Macdonnell), who declined to interfere and advised him to petition Her Majesty the Queen. In August, 1868, the decision of the Privy Council was received, indicating a complete defeat of the thief Justice, as not one of the six acts charged against Mr. Pollard was held to amount to contempt of court. The fine was remitted and the sentence reversed, but the Chief Justice was not silenced but continued the legal warfare in a more subdued form."
Actually this case, with the Privy Council's ruling, formed one of the leading causes of the time, and established the important legal principle that a man cannot be convicted on any count of contempt without being specifically told what the contempt consists of and being given an opportunity to defend himself against the charge.
Mr. Pollard acted as Attorney General in 1869, and shortly afterwards was appointed to the Executive Council.
He had come originally from Australia, arriving in the Colony in 1847, and being appointed a Queen's Counsel in 1865. He took his final departure from the Colony in June, 1870, and after his arrival in England was one of the counsel engaged in the famous Tichborne Cae, afterwards settling in the mother country and entering into private practice there. It is recorded of him that, he was gazetted a bankrupt in London in 1874, but shortly afterwards obtained his discharge. He certainly appears to have provided a great deal of excitement in otherwise prosaic court proceedings, and on his departure the local legal atmoshpere seems to have settled down tp momore tranquil state.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.