The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

SECOND COURT-MARTIAL ON LIEUT.
PERRY: - -

SEVENTH DAY-FRIDAY.

This day's proceedings commenced with the examination
of Lieut. Curtis.
At the request of the prisoner a question was put to
Lida. Danscombe, which he refused to answer.
Prisoner then said—Under the peculiar circumstances
of the case I request that the questions may not be put
before entered on the minutes.
Deputy Judge Advocate—There is always full and
ample time indeed to take them down before answering
the questions.
Adjutant-General (to prisoner)—The court has pursued
the .same course as youwished on the first day.
The two first charges were then read over against the

prisoner.
Prosecutor (to witness)—Were you present when Colonel
Garrett reprimanded an officer for annoying Lieut. Perry ?

Witness—l was.
Prosecutor—When and where was that reprimand
given ?
Witness—ln the month of July, 1853, in the Linen-
hall, Dublin.
Prosecutor—Did Colonel Garrett on that or on any
other occasion reproach Lieutenant Perry for making com-
plaints, or call him " A fool foI 'his pains. "Marl state that
Witness—ln my presence, can
.p yartie ar
Colonel 3arrett never reproached Lieut. Perry for making
complaints to his commanding officer ; and further, that he
never called him " A fool for his pains."
Prosecutor—When that reprimand was given had cer-
tain confidential circulars regarding practical jokes been
read to the officers.
Witness—To the best of my knowledge, I think not.
Prosecutor—Do you know whether Lieutenant Perry
ever sent a letter to Colonel Garrett threatening to com-
plain to the general officer of the district ?
Witness—l do not.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner—Since this inquiry has
commenced, or before, have you been spoken to as to the
tenour of the evidence you should give ?
Witness—To the first part of the question, no ; to the
second, I gathered the tenour of the evidence from the news-
papers.
Prisoner—What was the teuour of the circular sent round
to each officer by Colonel Garrett just before the inquiry
being instituted; and if you cannot state the precise words,
can you produce the evidence before the court ?
Witness—Colonel Garrett sent round three questions to
some officers and two to others, to be answered and re-
turned to the orderly-room. Colonel Garrett, I believe,
took those papers to the Horse Guards. The tenour of them
was this—Colonel Garrett wished to know whether the
officers: could bring to his mind his either having reproached
Lieutenant Perry for making complaints or calling him a
fool for his pains, or saying he would write to the general
to complain of the conduct of Captain Nicholas to young
officers—these were three questions sent to me.
Prisoner —Has there been no discussion, from time to
time, as this case has proceeded, as to the evidence you
could give, and have you not been spoken to since Duns-
combe gave his evidence yesterday; and what was said as
regards Dunscombe's evidence by the officers?
Witness heard no opinion on Dunscombe's evidence
given.
Prisoner—Are you aware that some of the officers had
not very clear recollections on the subject, and were they
not constantly asking others as to the answers they should
give in reference to the circular sent round by the colonel ?
Witness—There certainly was conversation among the
officers at the time, in reference to those circulars just
before the court-martial was ordered. These questions
came to me in the morning about nine o'clock.
Prisoner—l place myself in the hands of the court, and
appeal to them if this is an answer to my question ?
Witness—l cannot answer it more fully. I went down
to Waldey's room, where I found him conversing. I read
those questions over, and said they might be very simply
answered. I went back to my room, and answered them,
and he gave them to the adjutant.

Prisoner—Were not the officers' assembly sounded, and
were not all the officers gathered to refresh each other's
memories?

Witness—Certainly not. The officers' assembly was not
sounded. If the officers' assembly was sounded it was for
another purpose.
Prisoner—What necessity was there for going to Wal-
dey's room if the questions were so easily answered?
Witness—l simply went to see if he had the same sort
of questions I had.
Prisoner—Will you state that the officers' assembly did
not sound, and that the officers were not in close delibera-
tion for upwards of an hour ?
Witness— Jpon reconsideration I think the officers'
assembly did sound. I had forgotten the day. The reason
of the assembly was for auditing the mess accounts.
• Prisoner—State the day, and produce the accounts stat-
ing on what day they were audited ?
Witness—l cannot, and the accounts are not in my pos-
session ; I am not on the mess committee.

Prisoner—May I request the mess-master be called to
produce those accounts? State the day as nearly as pos-
sible—that will satisfy me.
Witness—A few days before the court-martial ; the day
the colonel went to the Horse Guards.

Prisoner—The reason I require the day is, I look upon
it as singular the books should be audited just at this
time.

Prisoner—Did you not speak to me after the reprimand
in your room at the Royal Barracks, at Dublin, and say,
"I think you got the worst, old fellow;" and did not I say
I would never report again ?
Witness—l do not recollect the circumstance ;it may
have happened. Ido not deny it.
Prisoner—Were not the mess accounts audited on the
Bth July, 1854; and have they been audited since ?
Witness—With the permission of the court, I beg to
decline answering the question—firstly, because I have
already stated that I cannot swear to the day ; and,
secondly, that it does not bear on the charge.
By the Court—Was Lieut. Perry subjected to any an-
noyance or persecution in any way after Colonel Garrett
had reprimanded an officer for his conduct to Lieut. Perry ?
Witness—Not that I am aware of. Soon after the re-
primand Lieut. Perry went into the sick list, where he
remained upwards of three months. I never heard of any
persecution up to the time the regiment left Dublin and
_went on detachment.

By the Court—Was Lieut. Parry in the habit of joining
in practical jokes towards his brother officers ?
Witness—l cannot say that he was. Ido not think he
was on sufficiently intimate terms to play practical jokes
with them.

By the Court--Was Lieut. Perry shunned by his brother
officers ' • and, if so, was it on account of his having com-
plained to Colonel Garrett ?
Witness—l cannot say that Lieut. Perry's society was
actually shunned, but his society was not courted. I can
safely say he was not shunned on accountof the reprimand
to the officers.

By the Court—Did prisoner in any way suffer in conse-
quence of making his report ?
Witness—Not to my knowledge.
By the Court—Does not the officers' assembly sound
every day?
Witness—No, except for mess.
Prisoner—l mean the assembly call is a very different
call to the mesa call. The reason I put the assembly is,
because it is on field days only it is called.
Witness's answer was then registered simply " No?'
Prisoner—l have one question I wish to put through the
court. Was not Lieut. Dunscombe abused for having re-
ported, and was not unmeasured language used towards
him by Colonel Garrett ?
Witness--I was not present at the time of the repri-
mand. I was on the Royal main guard at Dublin. I
heard of it afterwards.
Lieutenant Hesketh examined.
Prosecutor—Were you present when Colonel Garrett
reprimanded an officer in consequence of a complaint of
Lieutenant Perry?
Witness—l was not present. I heard of it.
Prosecutor—Was there any other officer of the name of
Hesketh at the time in the regiment ?
Witness—No.

Prosecutor—Do yon know whether Colonel Garrett did
on that or on any other occasion reproach Lieutenant
Perry, or call him a fool for his pains ?
Witness—No.

President—Do you know whether Lieut. Perry ever by
word of mouth or in writing threatened to appeal to the
general of the district?
Witness—l never heard anything of the kind.
By the Court—Did you ever hear any one else reproach
Lieut. Perry?
Witness—No. _ _ _

..
By the Court—Was Lieut. Perry's society shunned by
his brother-officers ? If so, was it on account of his having
complained to Colonel Garrett ?
Witness—He was not generally shunned. I avoided
him myself on account of his disagreeable, forward manner.
By the Court—Was Lieut. Perry subjected to annoy-
ance in any way after Colonel Garrett had reprimanded
an officer ?

Witness—Not that I am aware of.
By the Court—Were the officers, to your knowledge,
ever assembled together to discuss certain questions pat by
Colonel Garrett ?
Witness.—The officers were assembled together to dis-
cuss certain questions put by Colonel Garrett. The officers
were assembled, but not with reference to those questions.
By the Court—What were they assembled for ?
Witness—They were assembled in consequence of a letter
written to.the Times by Lieut. Perry.
. By the Court—What took place on the occasion ?
Viritness —Simply to discuss what appeared in the letter.
13y the Court—Were there any directions given at the
time to any of the officers ?' Witness—No.
occasßy
i the Court—Were the mess accounts audited on that
on ?
Witness--I think not.
By the Conee--tort.„sa addrsed you on that occasion, and
what did he or they y
ee
Witness—Colonel Garrett first addressed the officers, and
remarked on thefalseaftcater
tmenenticoetained in the letter.
The court adjourned
Colonel Garrett was then re-loners. By the Court—Did you ever receive a letter from Lieut.
distr
Perryic t threatening to complain to the general officer of the
Witness—Never.
By the Court—Where did you administer a reprimand
to the officer in consequence of a complaint by Lieutenant
Perry, and when ?
Witness—l think the various occurrences were in the
months of May and June last year, and might have gone
into July. There were three different occurrences in the
Linen-hall Barracks, Dublin.
Prosecutor—Had you at that time received any confi-
dential communications regarding certain particular- jokes
and had you at that time read them to the officers? ,
Witness—The confidential communications alluded to
reached me in the middleofJuly,taonodklphlaacve.eno doubt they
were read after these occurrences
Prosecutor or did they
—Were the officers who have accompanied
the 46th to Turkey selected for this purpose,
go in due course of duty ?
Witness—The order came tot me c
oot up ta
ntee s end of
t efr
e was
weeks for a strength equalthem reatw to
and
dn athheufirrryst,
oarsdtehreyl
gave
a necessity for getting
to go en the following Monday ;
order I gave was that two senior
captains
and the officers belonging to their c
ompan should
These were
uld be ready
the two senior companies at he
O'Toole's ancl Captain Virombwell,s .
I quarters, Captain
shortly after
I had order& Wombweli's company
t
to go that a large por-
tion of it was out on detachment at Kings on and Hyde-
park.company
I therefore substituted Captain Harvey
for Can Wombvrell's, with his officers, and they went
irrespectively of any selection.
Prosecutor—Was their selection influenced by anything
in connection with the trial of Lieut. Perry ?
Witness--Certainly not. I think Lieut. Perry's first
trial was then going on. The court was sitting at the time.
Prosecutor—The prisoner having stated that he had been
confined to a small room, and it having gone forth to the
public that his health was suffering from it, I wish to ask
what was the extent of Lieut. Perry's confinement ?
Prisoner—ln justice to Colonel Garrett I beg to state