The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-25 00:00:00

//

COURT-MARTIAL AT WINDSOR.

THIRD DAY.
WINDSOR, JULY 24.
On the Court re-assembling this day, the prisoner
proceeded with the examination of the witnesses in his
defence ; he called only Major Maxwell, not putting
either Surgeon Webb or Adjutant M'Alister on their
oaths, although their names were handed in at the
commencement of the inquiry. Major Maxwell deposed
that, during the five years prisoner had been in the regi-
ment, he had lived in general harmony with the officers,
that he had never known prisoner to be drunk or unfit
for duty through drink, that he (witness) had repri-
manded "in Lieut. Perry's presence"— [lt ?fill be re-
membered that Lieut. Perry only deposed that Major
Maxwell might have done so, but he was not aware of
it.]—officers against whom he (Lieut. Perry) had com-
plained, that Colonel Garratt had reprimanded, and most
severely, one officer against whom Lieutenant Perry had
complained, forbidding such officer ever again to enter
Lieut. Perry's room, by day or by night, since which
time, he had reason to believe, all annoyances had
ceased. This (in reply to prosecutor) was shortly
after Mr. Perry joined the regiment. It was then
in the Linen Hall Barracks, Dublin. To his know-
ledge Captain Nicholas was not in the habit of ill-
treating young officers on joining the regiment ; indeed,
he was exceedingly kind towards them. Would say that
Captain Nicholas never played practical jokes on the
young officers—(a pause)—that is to the best of witness's
' knowledge. He meant to say so far as he knew. Here,
in reply to the court as to who was the next witness,
prisoner said he would not further take up the time of
the court by calling further evidence, but that he would
request an adjournment to two o'clock to complete his
defence.

The Court was then adjourned to two, when, on its
assembling, a letter from Lieut. Perry to the President
was handed in, of which the following is, we believe, the
substance :—The writer informed the court that, having
heard from a friend the purport of the replies given by
Major Maxwell to the questions relative to certain por-
tions of his (Lieut. Perry's) cross-examination on some
points no way connected with the charge before the
court, ho had to express his regret that he could not be
allowed to be present; as be (Lieut. Perry) could have
refreshed Major Maxwell's memory on sundry points of
which he seemed to be singularly forgetful.
The defence was read by a Mr. Bullock (a London
lawyer, who announced himself as being a relative of the
prisoner). The Court had previously stated that the de-
fence could be read by a friend, but not a legal friend.
It was as follows :
Mr. President and Gentlemen—l have first to thank
you for the patience and attention with which this in-
quiry has been conducted. I have to meet accusations,
which place in jeopardy my character, my fortune, and
prospects in life. I have to take my trial a prejudged
man by the world and the press. Before I had the full
opportunity of speaking for myself I was held up to
the world as a convigted ruffian. Before any other tri-
bunal I might well dread the effects of the cruelty and
unfairness, but here my case will be determined in the
calm spirit of honour and truth- according to the evi-
dence only, without heed to prejudice or clamour. I
have been anxious to make that evidence as comprehen-
sive as possible, both for the character of myself and my
regiment, those hostile to me have sought every oppor-
tunity to attack my brother officers.

There are two charges against me, of blows and words,
both arising of the same transaction, and depending
nearly e
the testimony of the same witness. lam not
going t
impute to Lieutenant Perry deliberate perjury,
on
to ruin me ; nor do I believe Mr. Perry capable of this.
Though no forbearance has been shown to me, I will
not follow this example ; but I would ask the court to
bear in mind the very peculiar circumstances under which
Mr. Perry gave evidence against me. There are the
strongest inducements for any one in his situation to
colour the case as strongly as possible against a prisoner,
to repeat everything favourable to himself, to forget
everything adverse. A man's memory, where there was
drink, high play, boisterous jocularity, loss of temper,
serious violence, is not to he trusted, even by himself;
much less against a prisoner, who cannot be heard to
give evidence. I t is not on such testimony, partielarly if,
in many essential points, contradicted by the other evi-
dence, that such charges are to be sustained before a court-
martial, whatever authority may be thought elsewhere to
supply for violent abuse of British officers, and myself in
particular. Prisoner then proceeded to the following
effect :—[the opening portion of the defence was so
diffuse that we have been obliged to condense it so as
somewhat to confine it to the matter at issue.] e
Court had both the written minutes and the demeanour
and words of Lieut. Perry before it, and it was for them
to determine whether there was 'no wish on hisa jagart n
to
0
press hardly against the prisoner in matt
h
nigihafol'_
immediate reference to the transaction before the. Court,
that as to his (prisoner's) sobriety on this .
ness was asked explicitly whether, in h
soner was fit for duty as a soldier ? Sureilsy thisi
rques trr
Pori
might have been answered yes, or no ; but m . Pon