The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-28 00:00:00

TEE CRAWLEY COURT MARTIAL,

PROM OUR, srEcraL REPORTER.
TENTH DAY.
[me following appeared in the Third Edition of "The
Sun" of last evening] :

ssetu bleu' Friday
Morning.
at 10 minutes after
absent from indis-
position.the 6th (Tnniskil-
ALDERSUOT '
This morning the court rea
10 o'clock, Colonel Lodder Wing still
Gavix Ainslie Turnbull, surgeon of
ling) Dragoons was recalled for cross-examination,
said, in reply to Colonel Crawley, that his after repo
H°
modified to a certain extent the op inion he expressed in
the detailed case, but to what. extent he could
not previously state, but his opinion with regard
to the other causes remained substantially the same
On the information supplied to him by Colonel Crawley.
and Assistant Surgeon Barnet that a quantity of brandy
had been consumed, he was led to the belief that the prisoner
might have consumed that quantity of spirit, and that it,
was calculated to increase the predisposition to an apoplec-
tic seizure, but to what extent, of his own personal know.
ledge, he was unable to state, as there was no indication in
the post mortem appearances which would lead him to sup-
pose that the man had died from using drink to excess.
Nor has he ever noticed any indication of drink about the
prisoner during his lifetime.
Colonel Crawley—ln you: opinion is it part of the duty
of a regimental surgeon to ascertain, whether a soldier of
plethoric habit of body under close arrest in India, does not
consume a considerable quantity of brandy daily ?
Witness—lf he has any reason to suppose that the pri-
soner is addicted to the use of ardent spirits, I think it is
the duty of the medical officer who attends upon him to find
out whether he does consume a considerable am.
. .

Spiritsu
e oduatiiluyu,
aotri not.en,
w
Major Lilley for the
saw him frequently during the
ip*tunrepssoeseatecif he never visited. .Sergeant
ihntge
atorrreeht
period of
the duty of Ass'
daily. He could not
Barnet to see the prisoner
7.11 :et
not state how often he visited the Stir-
geant Major, nor did he visit him for the purpose of
minutely enquiring
inspection into
the state of his health. He never
his arrest. The
not sent to the hospital sergeant
previous to being confined was
for
of
feffical examination. He was
not aware what the nature
to be when he was first placed i
a his imprisonment was going
anticipate it was to be so long Theesergeant confinement, nor did he
,
suffer from any specific complaint du . major did not
died, He did not anticipate Sergeant Zn9g his arrest until he
consequence of the arrest under which he
was death as
did not recommend before the 30th of April thatplaced, He
Major Lilley should have exercise, because he
didnot Know
Sergeant
the nature of the confinement which he was undergoing,
The circumstances connected with his arrest were of
unusual, and, as he considered at the time, of so mysteriouss°
a nature, that he did not know exactly how to act intla
e
matter. It was unusual and mysterious so far that
he understood the prisoners were not examined
in the orderly-room of the regiment, nor were they
examined before the adjutant or any field officer of the
regiment. Between the 26th and the 30th of April, to the
best of my recollection, he believed he did inquire what was
the nature of Sergt. Major Lilley's arrest, and, so far as he
remembered, he did not find out the exact nature of his
offence. He understood that the three sergeant majors
were under close arrest, and that it was Colonel Crawley's
wish that they should be so. He never anticipated that
Sergeant Major Lilley's imprisonment would have been
prolonged, and that was the reason why he did not
make earlier application on his behalf for exercise,
A detailed medical history of Sergeant Major Lilley's case
was, he believed, sent to Colonel Crawley on the Bth of
June, or it may have been the 7th. It was on one of those
days that the report was sent on. After the report was
sent in Colonel Crawley asked him in reference to the
quantities of spirituous liquors Sergeant Major Lilley was
supposed to have drunk, and inquired of him whether he
wished to make any alteration in his report, At the inter-
view which he had with Colonel Crawley he said he did not
consider that any additional report from him was necessary,
as he was convinced that the man had died front
heat apoplexy, and that he had no proof that excess in
spirits was the cause of death. Assistant Surgeon Barnet
was Sergeant Major Lilley's medical attendant, and it was
he who gave witness the information relative to the con-
sumption of spirits by the sergeant major, which induced
him to mpdify his report. He never heard that Lilley
drank large quantities of brandy from any one but Assistant
Surgeon Barnet and Colonel Crawley. If ho had ever
made such a statement he did not mean to convey that
meaning.
Colonel Crawley—Have you said that in none of
your medical reports was there anything that could be con.
strued to attach any blame to me ?
Witness—There is a letter I addressed to Sir Hugh
Rose in October which conveys that meaning I think.
The witness was next examined in detail with regard to
his medical reports, and to certain portions of them which
had been expunged, bat he did not know by whom that had
been done.
Captain the Hon. Edward Bourke, of the Gth Dragoons,
was called, and a letter being shown to him, he was asked
whether he wrote it, and whether he had any objection to
its being read to the court. He said he did write the letter,
and had no objection to its being read. The letter, which was
read, stated that the writer had known Sergeant Major Lilley
as a sober, worthy non-commissioned officer, for whom he
had the greatest respect. He had known him from the period
of his joining the regiment, in the beginning of 1858, till he
left the regiment in India, in March, 1862.
Surgeon Turnbull was re-called. and his cross-exami
continued. He had state in one of his n
tion was d reports
that Sergeant Major Wakefield was admitted into h
A man might be said to be admitted, and yet not dospital.
etained
in hospital. He remembered seeing the letter produced
(the letter was read). It was from the Commander in
Chief, and it was remarked that Sergeant Major Wake-
field was admitted to hospital on the 25th of May,
1862, labouring under feverish and nervous excite-
ment. Other entries were shown to the witness on this
subject, but be could not verify theta
to his private notes, 43n the without reference
28th of June he for-
wa warded to Colonel Crawley
a letter purporting to
contain an abstract of Mr. W
stated that Sergeant Major Wakefield's case. (The letter
hospital on the 25th of M Wakefield was ordered into
li May, the day on which Sergeant
Major Lilley died).
the 25th of June, and e recovered, and was readmitted on
was discharged convalescent on the
expiration of eleven days. There was an abstract of Wake-
field's case entered
he had had a communication
in. one of the books the day after
with Col. Crawley, to whom
he mentioned the circumstance. It was 13 months after
the date of the case that the particulars were entered from,
witness's p • rivate notes. He officially informed Colonel
C' awl .
' eY of the facts, and he had all the correspondence. He
did not recollect whether at the time Colonel Crawley asked
him for his private memoranda, or whether be produced
any, Colonel Crawley expressed his surprise that wit:aa
should bave given for the use of the Commander-in-Chief
edlime is
copy of a case 'ehich was not at that
took the
h
the books. On the 29th
of
June
h
order: book to Colonel Crawley
and told him that
another registry
he had found Wakefield's
case
't
register it
ot which he had no knowledge.
In
thatend a different date
ap-
peared that there had been an erasure:
substituted, for which he could not aoo=t. The original
entry was dated May 25, but that had been erased
best of his belief
and June 5 substituted. To the
man was detained on
he altered the date, becausde
the
the sth of June. Head-
the 25th of May and onadmitteuerasure,
but the circumstances
witted that there had biatehnoua
t reference to his private notes.
he could not explainwithout
recollection he made the erasure himself.
To the best of his s
were put to the witness connected
SeVeral other
whichquestions
he
gave most elaborate answers.
with this subject, to
Ia
questions had in many
consequence of this the
.n .
cases
to
that it was im-
possible repeated, Colonel protestedPiprodnthhaevalnsgwers.
possible for him c
to
record
der
The witness was still auexamination when the Court
rose at 4 o'clock.
The President announced that the next meeting of th
Court would take place at 10 o'clock on Monday next. e

Course of the Exchange—Yesterday.

Amsterdam
Ditto
Rotterdam .. --- 11 19t 11 191
Antwerp
w .. • . --- 25 60 2b 721
Brusqele — 25 60 '25 721
fla burgh
I'ollB -- 13 84 13 81
• Short. '25 25 25 35
Ditto ............ 3 pionths. 25 67i 25 72f
;Marseilles ..........
211 671 25 721
/..'ritnktort on Maine.. 1191 . 119 i
v tenna .......... 12 40 12 a 5
12 65
Trieste ........... 12 40
:'tei,iii rz.-: blll-:1.1 .. . .
__—
2255 ;,:38,8:00 33
Berlin ..............
Madrid
48 48.1-
........ ,•••
• 44.
`.:5 80
Leghorn ............ 25 80
25 85
25 65
Genoa
25 871
~.. 25 821 - 871
Naples .
Palermo
:Nie;,s-nnt
LisiJou
9pol-to
.1.. oeziiegana (oldpoll
ainr 8
.Bars ........
.................
.. ..P2;,55r..55.°22°8.181::1: . . ~
.1:22:55 :!78170
72