The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LON.D9N, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 20, 1863,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

~-

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
GASKILL V. GASKILL AND ROBERTSON.
This was a petition for dissolution of marriage on the
ground of adultery, presented by the husband.
The parties were married in 1858 at Camberwell, and
resided together until the early part of last year, when the
respondent left her husband. There was no issue to the
marriage, but the respondent became addicted to intemper-
ance. Daring the absence of her husband she was visited
by a solicitor, and also received many letters, which were
always given to her when the husband was from
home. A quarrel took place, when she left him the next
morning, and since that time she had been seen in a coffee•
shop with the co-respondent, and on one occasion they re-
mained there the whole of the night.

The Court gave a rule nisi.
MASSEY V. MASSEY AND HARRIS

This was a similar petition presented by the husband.
From the evidence it appeared that the petitioner was a
clerk in Manchester, and was married in 18.55, and they
lived together for eight or nine months, when Mrs. Massey
left with the intention of visiting her friends in the c)untry,
in Wiltshire. While she was away a report became current
that she had been locked up in prison for some offence.
This was inquired into, and found to be true, and then the
husband wrote to her and asked some explanation. When
she returned she did not come to the house in which her
husband was residing, but went to one near it, and after-
wards she came and created a disturbance in the street.
The husband told her he could net live with her
after what he had heard, and she than came
to an understanding that she was to receive a weekly
allowance. She received the money a short time, when she
left the place altogether and came to London, and there
married a second time.

The Court granted a decree nisi.
WHEELDON V. WHEELDON.
This was a petition presented by the wife against the
husb end, on the ground of cruelty and adultery.
The latter plea having been clearly made out, the peti-
tioner was called to prove the cruelty.
Mrs. Wheeldon said on several occasions her husband
had treated her with the greatest brutality. Once during
the time they lived together ho knocked her down with an
umbrella. On another occasion he lifted her completely
off her feet by holding her up by the ears. The only cause
she could assign for his ill-treatment was because she asked
him to allow her to give a few lessons in music in order to
release themselves of several debts he had contracted.
The court granted a decree nisi with costs against the
husband.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell,
Channel', and Pigott.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. SILLIAN AND OTRERS.--THE
_ .

---
SEIZURE OF THE ALEXANDRA.
The Attorney-General resumed his arguments this
morning, and was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Wightman, Blackburn, and Mellon.)
EARL OF COVENTRY AND OTHERS V. WILLES.
The plaintiffs in this case are members of the Jockey
Club, and the action is brought against the defendant, the
well-known sporting editor of the Morning Test," Argus,"
for trespass, in insisting on his right to go and remain on
the Newmarket Race Course, after having been warned off
by the Jockey Club. The case now came before the Court
on demurrer to a number of pleas by the defendant, which
set forth that there was an ancient law and custom for the
public, that all the subjects of the Queen, of their own free
right and pleasure may go and remain on a land known
as Newmarket Heath, at all times when horse races are
there usually held, that is in the months of April, July,
and October, and witness the horse races there, and to
return from such place, and that such ancient law and
custom had existed trom time immemorial. Some of the
pleas varied the terms of the right, and asserted that New •
market Heath was a common highway, and open to all the
subjects to go and remain there of their own free right and
pleasure, to go and remain at all reasonable times to witness
and see the horse races there, there being also in such right
an exception as against persons who by reason of their mis-
conduct had been warned off the heath by the Jockey Club.
Mr, Mellish, Q.C., with Mr. Harman, appeared on the
part of the plaintiffs, in support of the demurrer, and in-
sisted that the general right and custom, as set up by the
pleas to all the subjects of the Queen to go and remain or
their own free will and pleasure to witness horse races was
untenable. He relied chiefly on the case of " Fitch and
Rawlings" in 2d Henry Blackstone. Any person might
dedicate a piece of land for such purposes as the holding of
horse races or a fair, and that the public might go and re-
main there to see such horse races or fair, but that did not
give a common right of highway, or give all the subjects of
the Queen the right to go and remain at all times of their
own free will and pleasure, on the land.
Mr. Quain, on the part of the defendant, argued at great
length in support of the pleas. The custom existed from
time immemorial. Horre races were spoken of as being held
at Newmarket in the time of Henry VII E., and then it was
spoken of. as being a place where horse races had been
hitherto held.

Mr. Justice Blackburn asked whether the owner of the
soil would not have the right to put an end to such right?
The Lord Chief Justice said there must be cases of ex-
ception from a general common law right. For instance,
it was well known that at Goodwood the public were ad •
mitted, but that did not do away with the legal rights of the
Duke of Richmond.
Mr. Quain said that was no doubt an exceptional in-
stance, but in such cases as at Newmarket and Chester,
which was the oldest race-course known to exist, there had
been from time immemorial a general common right to the
public, that is, all the subjects to go and remain at such
time as races were held. The learned counsel then pro-
ceeded to cite a number of authorities in support of his

views.
The Lord Chief Justice, without calling on Mr. Mellish
to reply, said he was of opinon that the custom and right
set up by the pleas were too general, he did not
think there could be a customary right to all the subjects
of the Queen, to be present, and to go and remain
on the land. A customary right only applied to the inhabi-
tants of the district where the custom existed, and not to the
general public by right at common law, He was of
opinion that the authority of Fitch and Rawlings in 2d st.
of Blackstone, was binding on them, and that for those
reasons the demurrer must be allowed, and judgment en-
tered for the plaintiff.
The other Judges concurred.—Demurrer allowed.
There are other pleas raising issues of fact which remain
for trial.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
RE COLONEL IVAUGII.
This morning was appointed for last examination and
discharge of Colonel Waugh, who was, it will be remem-
bered, connected with the London and Eastern Banking
Company. There was also a notice for renewed application
for the release of the bankrupt from custody.
Messrs. C. Brown and Dubois, who had been specially
appointed by the Court to prepare the accounts, reported
that they were of such an extensive and complicated
character that they had not been able to prepare them,
and would not be able to complete them in less than
three months.

An adjournment was accordingly taken for that time.
Mr. Roxburgh then said that he had to apply under the
112th section of the Bankruptcy Law Consolidation Act
for the release of the bankrupt from custody. He would
briefly state tho circumstances under which Colonel Waugh
was in custody. He had been adjudged bankrupt, but
before he had surrendered he was taken into custody
on a capias at the snit of the official managers of the
London and Eastern Banking Corporation, for a sum of
of £50,000, on the supposition that he was about to quit the
country. The claim was on a promissory note overdue,
for which the plaintiffs sought to prove under the bank-
ruptcy, but which had been rejected by Mr. Commissioner
Evans, or they would not have had the right to apply for
the copies. The bankrupt was taken into custody so far
back as March last, but the plaintiffs had not taken any
steps to proceed with the action, not even having a decla-
ration. The reason for which was clear. The plaintiffs
knew that they would be met by a plea under the
statute of limitations, the note having been
overdue more than six years before the writ was issued.
The learned commissioner urged that there was not the
was
ieicvsaernrtsaoei
nnt
ohl yue
rnoaorsdtkei
asked
doe
hfuo:
wit or d.hcyeofemoo rumal
dins
sybi
coo
nf teeearnl
slightest evidence that a debt was due, and the bankrupt
Holroyd,
ruopyodn, under
whotto
the
e act.haltera d
refused to grant the release unless the bankrupt gave bail
himself for £l,OOO, and two securities in £2,000 each.
Mr. Roxburgh said that he did not ask the learned com-
missioner to alter or rescind the order of Mr. Commissioner
Holroyd, but under an altered statement of circumstances,
and on a question touching the liberty of the subject the
party interested could apply at any time to ally competent
court. Ho then stated that the unfortunate gentleman
was now almost totally blind, and confined in a dark room
and unable to coins into court. He had affidavits from
Mr. Brown (Brown and Dubois) that they would be
materially assisted if the bankrupt was released, and the
bankrupt himself swore that he had no intention of quitting
the country, but was anxious to give all possible infer
mation and show how ho had disposed of the money,
but he could not get people to go to him in prison. The
learned counsel described the pitiable condition in which
the bankrut.,t was, and the only prospect of his ever regain-
ing his sight would be by undergoing a most painful opera-
tion. He, therefore, thought it was a case which the
Court, tempering justice with mercy, might exercise its
discretion and order the release.
Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, and Mr. Bazley, for the
official managers,
contended that Mr. Commissioner Hot-
royd's decision ought to be upheld.
His Honour ultimately said he would consult Mr. Hol-
royd before he gave his final decision,

FOR SEVEN YEARS PAST Two MILLION GAL-
LONS OP PURE SFRING WATER have been daily pumped
into the Thames.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A FOOLISH REASON FOE, ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT
SUICIDE —Mary Ann Dollard, about 39 years of age, ser-
vant to a gentleman residing in Sussex-street, Pimlico,
was charged with attempting to commit suicide.
From the evidence of a park constable named Jenkins,
it appeared that hearing an alarm that a female was in the
Serpentine, he went there and found the prisoner in the
water. A young man threw off his coat, jumped in, swam
to the prisoner, and with his (the constable's) assistance
brought her out. On asking her how she came to do such
a thing she made no reply, but cried bitterly.
Mr. Andrews, in whose service the prisoner had been for
10 years, said the prisoner had had a few words on a trivial
matter with. a person in the house, and it had excited her.
She possersed a good temper.
Prisoner said she Was very sorry. She was very excited
at the time, having had a quarrel.
Mr. Yardley—Do you always go to the Serpentine and
jump in when you have a quarrel ? It,is a foolish wicked
act, and nothing like it was ever heard. A woman, 39
years of age, quarrels with another, and then she goes and
jumps into the deep part of the Serpentine.
Prisoner, who was crying during the hearing of the case,
said she would not do such a thing again.

Mr. Yardley—How can I be sure of that. I shall re-
mand you for a week.

THAMES.

A MISCHIEVOUS URCHIN—SETTING FIRE TO A CART.
Charles Bird, a boy about 14 years of age, was brought be-
fore Mr. Partridge charged with setting fire to a a cart, the
property of Mr. Webber, a tradesman residing in Elizabeth-
street, Poplar.

Alfred Webber, a boy, son of the prosecutor, stated that
his father kept a sweetmeat shop at 26, Elizabeth-street,
and that his cart, in which was a truss of straw, was stand-
ing in the street opposite the shop yesterday evening. The
prisoner and another boy came to the cart, and one of them
said, "What a lark it would be to set the cart on:fire. One
of the boys then tried to ignite a lucifer match and failed.
The prisoner took a match from his pocket, ignited it, and
applied it to the truss of straw, which was instantly in a
blaze. His father and others extinguished the fire.
Mr. 'Webber said both sides of the cart were burnt, and
the nameboard in front scorched. He estimated the damage
at 405., but he was very willing to aceept of 20s.
The prisoner said he and other boys were playing about
the cart, and that another boy got a match and lit the straw.
The boy Webber was re-called, and said the prisoner set
fire to the straw.

Mr. Partridge said, if he had the power, he would order
the prisoner to be whipped with a birch rod. He ordered
the boy to pay 20s. for the damage and ls. fine, or be im-
prisoned 11 days.

The father of the prisoner said it was a hard case.
Another boy was concerned in the affair.

Mr. Partridge—Bring him here, and he will be punished.
Your son is a very mischivOus boy, and he ought to be
punished.

ATROCIOUS ASSAULT.—EIIen Leary, a middle-aged wo-
man, was brought before Mr. Partridge, charged with
assaulting and seriously wounding John Sullivan, a la-
bourer, whose head was enveloped in London Hospital
bandages. He had lost a large quantity of blood. The
parties live in an Irish colony in Garden-court, White•
chapel. The prisoner is the terror of the place. She has
been often in custody for violent assaults. Last night
she had the " dhrop taken," and while the prosecutor, an
honest and industrious man, was seated by his fireside
" saying nothing to nobody but meself," the prisoner rushed
into his peaceful dwelling, abused him, and used very foul
language. She then broke up and smashed all the poor
man's crockery and everything within reach. He went
out in quest of a policeman, and on his return she struck
him with a piece of iron: on the head, and inflicted
a severe wound. He was stunned by the blow, and car-
ried to the London Hospital.
A gentleman said he could give the prisoner a cha-
racter.

Mr. Partridge—What sort of a character?
The gentleman replied a very bad character. She is the
most violent woman I ever met with.
Mr. Partridge declined hearing any evidence of the
kinct volunteered by the gentleman, and remanded the
prisoner until Monday next.

MARKETS—This Day,

THE CRAWLEY COURT MARTIAL.

FOURTH DAY.
ALDERSHOT, Friday.
The proceedings were resumed this morning, all the
members of the Court being present.

The cross-examination of Lieutenant Fitzsimons was
proceeded with. We shall continue the report in our late
edition.

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

ALDERSHOT, Thursday.
The Court sat at a quarter past eleven. Paymaster
Smales was present during the day. •
Col. Crawley wished to put a few more questions to
Major Champion.
The Court assented.
Major Champion recalled—l was in constant communi-
cation with Col. Crawley during tho time of the arrest of
Sergeant Major Lilley and the outer two sergeant majors.
I never remarked the existence of a vindictive and mali-
cious feeling on the part of Col. Crawley towards them.
After the death of Sergeant Major Lilley, Major General
Farrell made an address to Sergeant Major Wakefield,
at which I was present. The address was in my hand-
writing, and the adjutant of the regiment took it round to
the officers to be read to Sergeant Duval. The address, if
dated at all, was read out on the 6th of June, and I have it
in my possession,
The address was then read as follows :
"Colonel Crawley, officers, and non-commissioned officers.
"His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief desired me,
in a letter dated the 6th of May, to dispose of the cases of
the late Sergeant Major Lilley and Troop Sergeant Majors
Wakefield and Duval when the general court martial
should have finally closed its proceedings. The ob.
ject of your being here assembled this morn-
ing is to hear read to you those instructions, and
also a dispatch which reached me yesterday evening from
the Commander-in-Chief. The Assistant-Adjutant-
General will now read, first, a memorandum dated J une 2,
and second, a letter, No. 13,747, May 6." (Read accord-
ingly.) " Sergeants Wakefield and Duval, you are now
released from arrest and from the. consequences of year
tolly. Circumstances over which I had no control have
lengthened the period of your arrest and confinement, and
by the will of the Almighty, your comrade, Sergeant Major
Lilley, has been taken away from among you, and I deeply
deplore his sudden death, and that he cannot have the
consolation of forgiveness granted him in your_ presence.
All of you . must bear this in mind, and re-
member it to the last day of your service that
subordination to the authorities placed over you is the
golden rule of conduct of all soldiers serving her gracious
Majesty. The late transactions, so clandestine and im-
proper, so closely resembling mutiny towards your com-
mander, have brought all this sorrow and trouble upon
you. The consequences of such conduct were inevitable;
and I trust you will hereafter show, by your conduct, that
you have seen your fault in its true light, and strive
to regain the confidence of your commanding officer.
To toe rest of you I have to say that discipline
and your own honour and happiness can only be maintained
by your individual conduct iu right feeling and subordi-
nation."
Witness continued—Sergeant Major -Wakefield was pre..
sent, and apparently in good health, at the reading of that
address. He did not seem to me to be a raving maniac.
By Sir• A. Horsford (the prosecutor)—Since Sergeant
Major Wakefield was released, has he been placed in any
position of responsibility in the regiment ?
Witness—I think he returned to his duty as a sergeant,
and, to the best of my knowledge, took his discharge about
a year subsequently, on the completion of his service.
Sir A. Hereford—Were any other quarters occupied by
Dibble (referred to yesterday) than those which had been
occupied by Lilley ?
Witness—I forgot to mention yesterday, and lam glad
of the opportunity of saying that Quartermaster Sergeant
Dibble, to the best of my belief, had additional accommoda-
tion on the north side of the quarters in which Lilley died,
and also another room of similar dimensions.
By the President—l am sure that Major General Farrell's
address was delivered on the 6th of June.
Colonel Crawley—Have you any means of proving that
the address was not delivered on the 7th of June?
Witness (after referring to certain memorandums
handed to him)—I find on refreshing my memory that I
have made a mistake. Major General Farrell's address
was read out on the morning of the 7th of June.
By the Court—You stated in your evidence yesterday
that the height of the wall in Sergeant Major Lilley's
second bungalow was 121 feet in height. The plan shows
that it was 9 feet 9 inches. Which is correct ?
Witness—I find that it was a sloping wall, The mea-
surement of the inside was upwards of 10 feet by scale, on
the outside about 9. The height mentioned from memory
by me of 12 feet 6 inches was therefore inaccurate. I do
not remember myself ever having occupied Government
quarters in India. I have lived in smaller rooms and worse
ventilated private bungalows than those last occupied by
the late Sergeant-Major Lilley.
The President—As Assistant-Adjutant-General to the
division of the Bombay army at Mhow, will you be pleased
to define close arrest as carried out in that Presidency ?
Witness--I define close arrest to mean the fact that a
sentry must be over the quarters in which the prisonerlives,
and that it is a mode of arrest resorted to where serious
crimes are charged against a prisoner. There are no local
orders as to close arrest in the Bombay Presidency. It is a
discretionary matter altogether.
The President—What do you mean by quarters ?
Witness—I mean wherever the prisoner is confined.
The Court—Are you aware whether Major General
Farrell's definition of close confinement agrees with that of
Colonel Crawley, as stated by Lieutenant Fitzsimons, " that
the sentry should not lose sight of his prisoner night or
day ?"
Witness—I am not aware of the definition Major General
Farrell would give, but in the case of Sergeant Major Lilley
it was necessary to prevent communication with outside

parties.
The Court—Was Major General Farrell aware that a
any time a sentry was placed in the same room with Ser.
geant Major Lilley and his wife?
Witness—To the beet of my belief, he was not aware of
any such occurrence.
The Court—Did Major-General Farrell, in addition to
express
ordering close arrest, order that no person should
Ser-
geant-Major Lilley except by Colonel Crawley's see
permission ?
Witness—Yes; it was so elated in one of the letters pro-
duced yesterday. The letter of the 28th of April, 1862,
contained the whole of the instructions ever given.
Lieutenant an Adlutant Fitzsimons was re-called for
cross-examination.
Colonel Crawley—ln your opinion were the quarters in
which Sergeant-Major Lilley was confined comfortable or
uncomfortable ?
Witness—The first quarters were comfortable ; the second
I do not think so, especially for a married man ?
Colonel Crawley—Were they as good as the quarters oc
cupied by the married men of the Inniskillings now ?
Witness—l think they were about the same.
Colonel Crawley—Could they properly be described as a
bombproof oven, and unfit for human habitation and inju-
rious to human health—is that, in your opinion, a true or
false description ?
Witness—What I recollect of the second quarters was
that it was a bombproof building, although I never took any
particular notice of it.
Colonel Crawley—l wish the question to bo answered
specifically. Was it a bombproof building ?
Witness—l do not think the description which has been
given of it is true.
Colonel Crawley—Could those quarters bo called unfit for
human habitation—is that statement true or false ?
Witness—l consider they were fit for habitation, but not
comfortable.
Colonel Crawley—Could they be called unfit for human
habitation?
Witness—No, not unfit.
Colonel Crawley—Could they be called injurious to health
—is that true or false?
Witness—My opinion is that they could not have been
healthy, because it was very warm there. My opinion is
that they were injurious to health.
Colonel Crawley—How many families of the Inniskilling
Dragoons occupied similar quarters while you were acting
as adjutant to that regiment?
Witness—l cannot state the number, but the greater
part of the families of the regiment.
Colonel Crawley—Do I understand you to say that the
greater part of the families of the Inniskilling Dragoons
occupied quarters that were injurious to health ?
Witness—l think so. There were continual complaints
about them.
Colonel Crawley—By whom, and to whom ?
Witness—By both men and women of the regiment
complaints have been made to me.
Col. Cr awley—Were the quarters in which Sergeant
Major Lilley was last confined the quarters provided by
Government for the use of the regiment ?
Witness—Yes.
Col. Crawley—Was it in your opinion the fapeultrtooffCtohls
Crawley that the quarters in which the greater.
families resided were injurious to health?
Witnes£—No.
Col, Crawley—Have you ever hear
Wiens which you admit to be untrue as
namely,
that it
doftothtehme
bisurielpdriensgenin-
which Sergeant Major Lilley was confined,
was bombproof and forulafihtaveheard human
t'
thainbitthateion?
Witness—l think papers. I do
not recollect having heard of it
elsewhere.
Col. Crawley—Will you swear that you have never any-
whereheard such a representation
I have stated, I do not recollect having
Witness—As
heard it elsewhere.
Colonel Crawley—Allow me,, Mr. President. Will the
witness swear to it?
Colonel
and whatever he Bays Judge Advocate)—He is on
hisoath,
hsays is under the sanction of
that oath.
Colonel Crawley—Have you any knowledge or idea from
what quarter such misrepresentations originated?
Witness—No.
Colonel Crawley—Have you taken any steps, as an
officer of the Inniskilling Dragoons, to correct a misrepre-
sentation so injurious to the honour of your commanding
officer ?
AC\ ru tenneer —c
rla
wdid e
yn_oti takeavey
steps.ou
since your return to En-
. lend, been in communication wi o.
e th Mr S I 3?
Witness—lie has called on me at my hl t
hotel twice or three

,imes. Otherwise not. I one day met him in the streets
in London, and once here in the court martial room.
Colonel Crawley—On the occasion on which you saw Mr.
Smales, did you converse with him on the subject of this
trial ?

Witness—l did.
Colonel Crawley—When did you last converse with Mr.
Smales on. the subject of this trial P
Witness—The day before yesterday in the court martial
room.

Colonel Crawley—How came you to cease to be adjutant
el the Inniskilling Dragoons ?
Witness—I was suspended in consequence of my cona_
mandjng officer reporting me.
Colonel Crawley—For what did your commanding officer
suspend you ?
Witness--I believe that it was for having partaken of
the paymast,9r's hospitality, and he also sated that I was
incompetent to perform the duties of adjutant. I have in
my possession the correspondence relating to it.
Colonel Crawley—On what ,ccasion did you partake of
the paymaster's hospitality when your conduct in that
respect was compiained of ?
Witness—l do not recollect at what date, but it was
when the paymaster was under arrest at INlhow.
Colonel Crawley—Was Mr. &dales tried for insubordi-
nation to Colonel Crawley, as commanding officer of the
regiment ?
Witness—Yes, _ .

Colonel Crawley—Da you regard the adjutant of a regi-
ment as tho confidential and right hand man of his com-
manding officer?

Witness—Decidedly.
Colonel Crawley—Do you think it consistent with the
duty of a person in such a position to be living on terms of
intimacy with a person standing in such a relation to the
commanding officer as Mr. Smales then did ?
Witness--I consider that having known Captain Smales
and his family for a long time—since they came to the re-
giment—and having always been on terms of intimacy with
him, I was not wrong in partaking of his hospitality.
Colonel Crawley—Was your removal from the adjutancy
confirmed and approved by General Sir William Mans-
field ?

Witness—l sent in my resignation, and it was approved
and confirmed.

Colonel Crawley—Look atthat letter, and see whether it
is the letter of Sir William Mansfield, in which your resig-
nation was approved.

The witness said at first he thought it was the letter, but
was not sure, but on the letter being produced, signed by
defendant's adjutant general, the witness said that, seeing
the signature to the letter, he supposed it must be the
letter.

The letter was then read, and expressed the opinion of
the Commander-in-Chief that Lieut. Fitzsimons had been
guilty of indiscretion in visiting the paymaster while a
court martial on him was in progress, especially looking at
the state of the regiment (6th Dragoons) at that time, and
further saying that it was fortunate for Lieut. Fitzsimons
that he had been permitted to tender his resignation.
Colonel Crawley—Were you censured by the court mar-
tial at Mhow for the evasive character of your evidence on
that occasion ?
Witness—l was censured by the Commander in Chief.
I don't remember that I was censured by the Court.
Colonel Crawley said that if the witness were ordered to
withdraw he would put the Court in possession of the facts.
Witness was requested to withdraw, and Colonel Crawley
said it was impossible for him to conduct his defence if the
questions put to the witness were discussed by the Court in
his presence, and he was aware of their bearing.
The witness then returned.

Colonel Crawley—Do you not know that the court
martial at Mhow thought it right to reflect upon the eva-
sive character of your testimony ?
Witness I really cannot at present say whether the
court martial made any remarks to me or not. I did not
read the report of the court martial through. I read chiefly
my own evidence in it.
Colonel Crawley—ls it possible that an officer can receive
a censure from a court martial before which he is witness
for giving evasive evidence, and yet forget the circum-
stance
Witness—l have already stated that I don't recollect it.
Colonel Crawley—Can you recollect conversations in the
orderly room, and even oaths which you have uttered, and
not remember a censure on your own character committed
to writing of the court martial before which you were a
witness. _ .

Witness—l can. To the best of my recollection when
the remarks of the Court were made I was away on leave.
On my return when I saw the remarks of the Commander-
in. Chief it was the only thing I paid attention to.

Col. Crawley—Look at page 92 of the blue book (upon
court martial on §males), and see whether you have before
read that passage which animadverts on your evidence be-
fore that court martial ?

Witness—To the best of my belief I have read that pas.
sage before, but I did not recollect my name being men-
tioned in it.

Colonel Crawley—Did the Commander in Chief, after
perusing your evidence on the court martial at Mhow, pro-
nounce it to be evasive and unsatisfactory, and such as
showed your entire ineffieienv for the adjutancy ?
Witness—He did pronounce it as such.
Colonel Crawley—You have said that I gave you a writ-
ten order on the 26th April for the arrest of the sergeants.
Was any one present on that occasion ?
Witness—l really cannot say.
Colonel Crawley—You have stated the names of all the
persons you allege to have been present when the second
order was issued. Why cannot you equally state who were
present on the first occasion?
Witness—lt was in reference to the second occasion that
the Commander in Chief remarked on the position in which
the sentries were posted, and, as I understood at the time,
to write a letter of explanation for the information of the
Commander in Chief. I naturally inquired of numbers of
officers whether they were present or not, and whether they
remembered the orders I had received from .my command-
ing officer.
Colonel Crawley—Then your statement as to the persons
who were present on the occasion alluded to depends upon
the information given to you by other people, and not from
your own knowledge?
Witness—No. I believed them to have been present,
but inquired whether they recollected the order I had re-
ceived from my commanding officer,
Colonel Crawley—Was your belief as to their presence
on that occasion sufficiently strong to have enabled you to
depose to the fact without any other assistance ?
Witness—l should not like to have deposed to the fact
without previously asking. They might have been out of

the room when the order was given to me.
Colonel Crawley—What remark of Sir Hugh Rose do
you allude to, and how does it appear that it referred to
the first or second order ?
Witness—lt must have referred to the second order, as
the sergeant major could not have been in on vecnienced by
the manner in which the sentry was posted according to
the first order.
[The witness was under ciess-examination when the
court rose.]