The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-19 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

army to the East. He was in his 48th year, and had
served a considerable time in the 79th. By his death
the seat for Forfarshire, the Surveyor-Generalship of
the Ordnance, and an appointment on the Adjutant-
General's staff are rendered vacant. Col. Maule
was next brother to Lord Panmure, and heir pre-
sumptive to that nobleman.
Asiatic cholera has shown itself in Horsemonger-
lane Goal. Two female prisoners confined therein
to await their trial at the next Surrey Sessions have
fallen victims to the disease.

THE WINDSOR COURT-MARTIAL.
AFTER fourteen days' sitting, entirely occupied with
listening to, or deciding upon, the voluminous
evidence offered on both sides, the court met for the
fifteenth time on Thursda), when Lieut. Perry pro.
ceeded to read his defence. The document was long,
and eloquently written. The prisoner set out by
declaring that he had been attacked by conspiracy 4
combination, calumny, and perjury, and he should
ask for a speedy and honourable acquittal
" Complaining of the injury done to hie cause by the
stoppage of his cross-examination of hostile witnesses
when he was eliciting important matter, but in other
respects admitting the kindness and consideration of the
court, and especially the upright and dignified conduct of
the President, Lieutenant Perry passed on to the con-
sideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in
support of the first charge—' falsely accusing Colonel
Garrett of calling him (Lieutenant Perry) a fool,' &c.,
which he subjected to a severe analysis and criticism.
The sum of all the testimony on this charge, he observed,
was, that Colonel Garrett did not recollect' calling him
( prisoner) a fool for his pains. Colonel Garrett could
testify to nothing positive, but could not charge his
memory' whether he used the words in question. And
all the evidence called by him on this point amounted at
best to the negative fact that the witnesses summoned
either had not heard the words, or could not remember
anything about it. The first charge, therefore, was a
positive failure. His (prisoner's) statement respecting
Colonel Garrett had been a positive statement, true both
in fact and in legal presumption, until its falsehood was
shown. But no accumulation of nothings could produce
an unit, no quantity of non-rni-recordas could amount to
demonstration. He was perfectly consistent with his
statement, that all the eight witnesses might either not
have recollected' or have heard' Colonel Garrett call
him a fool, and still the colonel may have called him so,
and did so call him.
" On the second charge—that he (Lieut. Perry) falsely
stated that he had threatened to Colonel Garrett to appeal
to the general of the district, there were the same
incapacity of recollection and want of knowledge on
the part of all the witnesses examined as on the first
charge, except in the case of Colonel Garrett himself, who
said he never received any letter threatening the report
alluded to. On his previous examination, however,
Colonel Garrett had sworn that he had' no recollection'
of the circumstance.
" On the third and fourth charges—falsely stating that
Captain Nicholas had ill-treated officers on joining, and
aided and abetted others in so doing—sixteen witnesses
had been called, with the endeavour to prove a negative
in support. Seven of these could be convicted of pre-
varication. Ensign Hutton did not " recollect" Captain
Nicholas using opprobrious language; Lieutenant Waldey
who denied that Captain Nicholas called Ensign Coote,
A d—d son of a bitch of an Ensign," was convicted by
his own letter, which stated that Captain Nicholas used
them at the mess-table ; Lieutenant Dunscombe's answers
were all in the non-mi-ricordo fashion. Lieutenant• Ford
had stated that only one officer of the 46th was present
when he l(Ford) was pulled out of bed, but Lieutenant
Curtis had sworn directly the opposite to this and other
statements. This latter officer had stated that he had'
' totally forgotten' the meeting of the officers assembled
by Col. Garrett to canvass his (prisoner's) letter. How
could such testimony possibly receive credit ? Lieutenant
Lewellyn, who only recollected being himself engaged
in throwing out Lieutenant Waldey's bed-clothes, had
been contradicted by Captain Chambers ; Lieutenant
Greer had found himself unable to recollect' suffi-
ciently to answer any important question. Adiu-
tant M'Alister was ' not aware' Captain Campbell
did not deny Captain Nicholas's participation in practical

NNW