The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-01 00:00:00

THE CRAWLEY COURT-MARTIAL.

ELEVENTH DAY.
[The following appeared in the Third Edition of "The
Sun" of last evening] :

Turnbull
en:7
The inquiry was thisresuraie,udriabALDEßSHOT, Monday.
amorning by the
bi Colonel
the
hospital Crawley.ca
e
cross-
examinationQ..when odfidDyro.uG.
make
n
•
book in which the erasure appears
A. I made it on the sth of June, 1862.
Q. How came it that on the 50a of June you dated the
made t
the days
entry for the 21st of May ?
A, I entered the history of his cas
he had been detained in the hospital.e, Including
he entry
from memorandums I had in my possession. Ido not
know where those memorandums are.
A long conversation then took place as to Sergea,.,l
Major Wakefield's admission to the hospital, the general
answer being that he was " detained " in hospital,
his " admission" not being recorded in any case book of the
time for the 25th of May. To the best of my belief there
was no entry of Wakefield's admission on the 25th of May.
Colonel Crawley called my attention to the statement that
Sergeant Major Wakefield had been sent to hospital on the
25th of May a raving maniac. Colonel Crawley complained
that Wakefield's being in hospital on the 25th of May had
not been notified to him. To the best of my recolleci ion I
did not tell Colonel Crawley that I knew Sergeant Major
Wakefield had never been in hospital et that time, nor that
I could have told him if he had asked me at the time.
I have answered some queries of Colonel Crawley about
Sergeant Majors Wakefield, Lilley, and Duval. I have both
questions and answers here. The questions were put in
the orderly room in the presence of Dr. Davis. They were
not signed by Colonel Crawley. They were in Colonel
Crawley's handwriting.
The questions and answers were then read at length
and examination continued—
I did not send in the answers, as Col. Crawley requested,
sayquestionsto re-
gisters
on the evening
that the intelligence arrived that Colonel
Crawley was to be tried by a court I
martial.
do not know
that Sergeant M • -
Major Lilley within an hour of his death
drank nearly a tumblerfull of brandy. C • •
Considering his
state at that time, if he did so, it would have had an injuri-
ous effect, but I cannot say
S
y whether it would have had a
Mr. fatal result. I last saw
males a week ago in London.
I received a communication from him last week, but I do
Rot recollect the date. Ido not thi
it was after my exa-
mination in this court. Ido not remember
Ile-examined by Colonel Sir A. Ho.
rshford—Colonel
Crawley seemed annoyed, and replied in a
voice, when I made application for the addirh tone
of
nal indul-
gence I asked for the three sergeant majors.
Colonel Charles Cameron Shute, 4th Dragoon
Guards,
deposed that he knew the late Sergeant Major Lilley from
the time of his joining the regiment till two or three years
ago, when he (Jolene' Shute) left, and considered him e.
thoroughly well-disposed good man.
A lengthened adjournment for consultation resulted in
Colonel Crawley being allowed to ask Colonel Shute whe-
ther he received a letter from the Commander in Chief, on
or about the 30th of June, 1860, conveying a censure on
the state of the 6th Dragoons, which regiment Colonel
Shute then commanded, and also of the state of the
officers. _ _

Colonel Horsford objected unless the prisoner produced
the letter un his evidence.
Colonel Crawley said the letter was the possession of the
Horse Guards, and therefore he could not produce it, but
if the prosecution could produce it, he would adopt it as
part of his case.
Colonel Sir A. Horsford stated that he had no such letter,
and the prisoner, if the court thought the question re-
levant, could apply to the adjutant general for the letter,
and Colonel Shute could attend again, and give evidence
upon it.

Colonel Shute begged to observe that he had not the
last objection to state the contents of the letter. He felt,
at all events, he was not on his trial.
John Hardy, late sergeant in the 6th Dragoons, and now
assistant warder at Portland Prison, deposed that he had
no objection to a letter written by him being read. [The
letter was read, and stated that the writer had known Lilley
for many years as a " very steady, sober soldier and non-
commissioned officer," and never known to be drunk or in
liquor during the time he (Hardy) knew him, us being in
same troop. In the Crimea he never even drew his full
rations of rum, and in India, at private parties met him
frequently, and he never exceeded his second glass of grog,
The letter concluded with these words, " I make
this statement not from any favour or affection for the late
Sergeant-Major Lilley, but as an act of justice to the me-
mory of an honest, sober, non-commissioned officer and
soldier."]
Lieut. Robert Davies recalled and cross-examined by Col.
Crawley-1 have no recollection of Dr. Turnbull making
through me any application as to refusing a coroner's in-
quest upon Lilley. I do not remember telling him that
Col. Crawley considered it unnecessary. During the time
I was acting adjutant I never received any complaints from
Sergeant-Major or Mrs. Lilley. I always asked him
if he had any complaint to make. I took
the orders as .to Sergeant-Xalor Lilley from the
regimental order-book. I remember being present
in the orderly room at Colonel
on one occasion when there was some between
the colonel and Dr. Turnbull about Sergeant Major Wake_
ago that
cannot
a vwreel
recsyoalstlieocnbtu lvnghaaltowit
field, but it is so long

Barnett was recalled, and asked by
Was.
at the words used by Mrs.
the ConVersation he had with her as to the amount
Lilley in
ed by her husband.
of brandy consumed CoAlosnseislt Sirt
objected, and a long a •
Colonel Crawley elib el-I-At ion ensued.
The court permitted the question, but the prisoner again
and after much discussion and further consulta-
and the court adjourned:,
on,
ty, it was referred to the Judge Advocate to decide its
legality,