The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-05 00:00:00

INTERESTING CASE.-IN RE JOHN WALTER POE.

Mr. PRICE moved for a rule to show cause why
a prohibition should not issue to restrain the execu-
don of the sentence of a Courtmartial pronounced
against John Walter Poe, late lieutenant of his
Majesty's 55th regiment of Foot. The Learned
Counsel was prepared to read the affidavits detail-
ing the facts of this case, upon which he moved the
Court to prohibit the proceedings of a courtmartial.
The ground of his motion was that the courtmartial
had decided upon a charge of which they could not
these
take cognizance. When their Lordships heard the
charge against the gentleman who applied to the
cCoouurittnnrtjai they
wasw 01l would
incompetent
doubtless
to determineadjudicate,
they had entertained a charge contrary to the spirit
and meaning of the Mutiny Act. The charge was
thatbe
because
this ;—" John Walter Poe, of the Strand, in the
county of Middlesex, late lieutenant in the 55th
regiment of Foot, made oath and said that he
was tried by a military courtmartial assem-
bled at Chatham on the 24th of August last, on the
charge that he, being a passenger in the ship Cesar,
during a voyage from Calcutta to England, was on
the 12th of February, 1832, accused of stealing a
5/. note and several pairs of silk stockings, said to
be the property of Thomas Ross, a servant in the
said ship. That the charge being brought under
the notice of Captain Watt, and other officers on
board the Cxsar, the said officers and passengers
expelled him from their society, and did not allow
him to enter the cabin during the remainder of the
voyage ; nevertheless the said John Walter Poe,
under circumstances so degrading, neither then nor
since had taken measures to vindicate his honour
and reputation." Such was the general charge on
which this gentleman was to be tried at Chatham,
and it was thought fit to add a sentence to bring it
under the Articles of War, namely, that such con-
duct was unbecoming a gentleman and an officer, it
being to the prejudice of good order and military
discipline. The deponent further said that on his
trial and defence he instructed his Counsel to ob-
ject to the Laid charge, on the ground that he
was not charged with a military offence according
to the Articles of War. The Learned Counsel was
prepared to contend that there was nothing in the
facts which could render the young gentleman liable
to be tried as an officer for neglect of good order
and military discipline, but the Court did proceed
with the trial, and, after deliberation, cc me to the
following decision The Court, having heard the
evidence and the defence, are of opinion that the
prisoner is guilty of the whole of the charge, and a
breach of the Articles of War. The Court doth
therefore sentence him, Lieutenant J. W. Poe, of
the 55th Foot, to be dismissed his Majesty's ser-
vice." The Court added that they considered the
charge in a military point of view, and did not de-
cide whether it was a theft as charged by the man
robbed. The objection to the proceedings was,
that the courtmartial had exceeded their jurisdic-
tion, inasmuch as they had entertained a charge
which was not an offence within tile Articles of,

War. Mr. Price then entered upon the powers
given to Courtsmartial by the Mutiny Act.
Mr. Justice PARKE--The sentence in this case has
been confirmed by his Majesty.
Mr. PRICE should contend that he could, in a case
like the present, call upon the Judges, who repre-
sented the King, to restrain the execution of an im-
proper sentence. If the Court could, in this case,
direct thLir prohibition to the Judge Marshal, they
would do a great service to the army and the coun-
try, as well as his unfortunate client.
The LORD CHIRP JUSTICE—What do you wish
us to prohibit ? We cannot prohibit carrying the
sentence into effect. That is done.

Mr. PRICE—It may not be final.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—What remains to he
done ? His is a clear sentence. He is dismissed for
life.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—After a Courtmar-
tial has pronounced sentence, which is carried into
effect, can the Courtmartiai reverse it ?

Mr. PRICE—I should think they could, because
they have done that which they could not do in law.
They might re-assemble.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Have you any case
to show where, a sentence having been carried into
effect, this Court has interfered to set it aside ?
Mr. PRICE had not such a case.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—You may take time
to see if you can find any precedent.
Mr. PRICE—I will, my Lord; but I suppose I may
obtain a rule to show cause ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—We must see whe-
ther we have power to grant a rule, and whether
there is not a good charge under the Mutiny Act.
Ungentlemanly conduct, unbecoming an officer, is
one of the things for which an officer may be cashiered.
It was then arranged that Mr. Price was at lib, rty
to apply to the Court again.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 4.

DEAN V. HOGG AND ANOTHER.

This was an action tried at Guildhall before Mr.
Justice ALDERSON for trespass and assault. The
defendants, it appeared, had hired a steam-vessel,
called the Adelaide, for a trip to Richmond. The
plaintiff, an attorney, and Mr. Walsh, a law-re-
porter, went on board the Adelaide on the day in
question, not being aware of the defendants having
engaged the vessel, and the person steering agreed
to take them for Is. 6d. each. The Jury found for
the plaintiff, damages 10/.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE this day moved for a rule
to show cause why there should not be a new trial,
on the ground of misdirection by the Learned Judge,
The Learned Sergeant stated the case in a most
humorous manner. The defendants had deter-
mined on having a day's pleasurable excursion, and
had hired the vessel for a party of fifty; but days
selected for pleasure generally turned out to be
days of grievance. Dr. Johnson, in his "Rambler" had
illustrated this by the tale of the ladies being at-
tacked by hungry or wanton alligators ; and in this
case the defendants, perhaps, having discovered the
profession of the plaintiff and his friends, were jus-
tified in having the same fears towards them as the
ladies had towards the alligators, and had requested
these gentlemen to leave, which, however, they
' with singular good taste refused to do, alleging that
th.ey had not been tictred as gentlemen. DJentl-
- caused a wherry to be brought alongside, and
with force ejected the plaintiff from on board the
vessel. The defendants justified, but the learned
Judge told the Jury he thought they must find for
the plaintiff. He (the Learned Sergeant) con ended
that the defendants were fully justified in expelling
the plaintiff from the vessel, it being theirs for the
day.
The COURT granted the rule.
In Lysons and wife v Barrow, Hyne v. Stone,
and Hammond v. Willoughby, rules Nisi were
granted.