The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

CO URT-MARTIAL AT PLYMOUTH.

The Court assembled on board the Impregnable,
in llamoaze, on Thursday morning, when Dr. Crec
stated that Capt. Storey, of ll.M.'s ship Russell, the
prosecutor, was too ill to attend, but that no risk
would be incurred if the Court could be held on
board his own ship. In compliance, therefore, with
an Admiralty order it adjourned to that ship at 11
o'clock.

The prisoner, Lieutenant Hall, in his defence,
which was read by Mr. Beer, said he had hoped
that the care and attention with which the
previous Court had investigated Lindopp's case
would have afforded sufficient satisfaction for the
ends of justice, and that the very slight assistance
he had received in carrying out the duties of the
ship as first-lieutenant would clearly appear to the
Court. It was admitted by Capt. Storey that he
was in the habit of receiving reports from the offi-
cers of the ship, and adjudicating thereon without
consulting the next in command, and that his posi-
tion was embarrassed by the absence of Captain
Storey, who was frequently on shore, which ren-
dered it notorious that the whole duty devolved
upon him. He believed the judges acted most con-
scientiously at the previous court-martial in order-
ing him to be admonished; and if he had been
allowed time, he might have proved that that ad-
monition was not lost; instead of which further
proceedings were immediately set on foot against
him by Capt. Storey, who denied all recollection of
the document which it was proved he had in his
possession and destroyed, and who, on the same day
on which he made a communication to Lieut. Hall,
was occupied in receiving petty officers of the ship
and hearing complaints against him. A subscription
list to aid the cost of expenses incurred by Lindopp
in his prosecution was got up, and more than one offi-
cer's name belonging to the Russell was attached to
it, which showed the state of feeling in the ship, and
the difficult situation in which the prisoner was
placed. The whole of the charges were more or less
instituted by malice, or for some private purpose.
In relation to the first charge, there was no evi-
dence to support the assertion that Michael Ken-
nedy was punished too severely ; it was evident to
the Court that the punishment was duly entered in
the defaulters' book, and that Captain Storey could
have seen it; that the prisoner was out of the ship
when the entry was made, and was therefore
neither wholly nor partly responsible for that
punishment. Captain Storey must have known
that Kennedy was in irons. The second charge
rested wholly on the statement of the master-at-
arms. There was never any intention to throw
contempt on the captain, and all he meant to con-
vey was that the punishment, and the way in which
it was carried out, was the captain's own affair, and
that his reply was of itself sufficient to show that
he did not wish to inflict heavy punishment. On
the third charge it was in distinct evidence that Le
Maitre was not punished. How could such pro-
ceedings as the appeal to the captain produce any
other effect than to bring the author of the punish-
ment, the first•lieutenant of the ship, into abuse ?
The second allegation on the same charge rested on
the punishment for the second offence, for which
the offender himself apologised to the prisoner on
the next morning. The punishment having been
instantly remitted accounts for the non-entry. The
third allegation was on the conversation of the
6th of September, of which no written notice was
taken, and which was not brought forward until
December, three months afterwards. The prisoner
said, " I do not care if you went to the post-cap-
tain 16 times," and did not mean to convey any
ill-nature. The manner of raising the finger would
be proved to be a habit, and was not meant to con-
vey any threatening gesture. It had been shown
that Le Maitre had not received double punish-
ment. Regarding the fourth charge, that the
punishment was not entered in the weekly report,
the prisoner thought it unnecessary as the offender
was unpunished. It had been admitted by Captain
Storey that he had looked over the book on the
13th of October, and that he did not think it ne-
cessary to call attention to these proceedings until
after tho decision of the Court in December.
Ox the fifth charge, forbehaving in an unofficerlike
manner and causing Lindopp to be punished with-
out the knowledge of Capt. Storey, and without
entering it in the' defaulters' book, Lieut. Hall
stated that it could be evidenced that he was al-
ready ordered to be admonished, and the Court was
therefore bound to allow that a competent tribunal
had already decided on the case, and that no Eng-
lishman is ever put upon his trial a second time
under such eircum,tance Lindopp had been drink-
ing, and for that reason the prisoner wished him to
repeat the instructions. The sixth charge had been
allowed by Lieut. Osborn to rest from Oct. 26th to
Nov. 27th, and the whole matter had been in abey-
ance until after the last court-martial. The prisoner
complained of ,the undoubted preludice of Lieut.
Osborn, who had, lie said, on evidence admitted

that he had contradicted him three times. When
the length of time that had elapsed was taken into
account it would be felt that less reliance should be
placed upon these statements. On the seventh
charge it would be remembered that Mr. Jones,
clerk, had volunteered his evidence on a former oc-
casion to support Lindopp, and he ventured to sug-
gest that such evidence was not much entitled to
the confidence of the court. It would be for the
court to consider how much the prisoner had at
stake, and the prejudice which appeared against
him by some officers of the ship. He should call
several witnesses to prove that his conduct had been.
very- different from what the prosecutors endea-
voured to make it appear. Out of all the officers of
the ship only two had come forward to complain of
oppression. From examination of the defaulters'
book it would be seen that the punishments had
been extremely light compared with the acts of
disobedience. Capt. Storey had scarcely ever at-
tended to the duties of the ship:
The prisoner having called witnesses to prove the
statements in his defence, testimonials in his favour
were read from Capts. Kimzcome and Hutton, Royal
William Henry Storey, ; and F. T. Brown,
Conflict, in which ships he had .Rerved•
The court was closed for half an hour, when Capt.
Storey was questioned in reference io an apparent
discrepancy in his evidence as to writtci or verbal
complaints from the crew.
Capt. Storey stated, when he said the com;liaints
of the petty officers were verbal, he referred to the
communications made to him in his cabin. Thjs
was in examination in chief, when he was going on
to say that he took the written complaint to the
Port-Admiral, but was stopped by the court. The
letter in question was one from the ship's company,
which he next day tore up in their presence, and
told them he could attend only to complaints made
to him in a proper manner.
Late on Thursdayevening the court pronounced
the following decision :—" The Ist, 2d, 4th, sth,
6th, and 7th charges have not been proved. The
four last charges have been preferred on insufficient
grounds. The court is further of opinion that the
third charge has been partly proved, and in conse-
quence doth adjudge the prisoner to be reprimanded
and admonished to be more circumspect in future,