The New York herald., 1864-08-05
rae Case or Major w. w. Trowbridgc.
Rourteon nth New Eerk Heavy Arttalery.
= <yy1~rE x A
GENERAL OKDERa-NO. 81.
HgApopARrKws, fEpxRrMByT OF THE EAST,


-.6Aafs - Nfw loaMs 6ss4, July 20, 1854. ) .
NJ. Toes BY x0e o. orders
rent series. from these headquarters Of March - 1854
css q sss ana tried Mayor W.
frowbridge, Fourteenth New York volunteers neavy
C.saas Fraudulsnt conduct 70 the prejudice Of good
order and military dscipine"s
S New s ns %
captain in the regiment. and g such performing
sAe duties Of United States Recuting ocer " me town
On about the 31s day Of July 1885, or At some time
previous or afterwards permit fraud % be commit:
sd ana abet The commitment said fraud, by swearing
ana certifying certain o1cia voucher % correct
sooouns Of Albert NJ sherman, in the town Of Ogdens
burg, New York, date July 81. 1858, for rations
ssd' lodgings furnished recruits under command
Of Captain W. W. Trowbrldgs Fourteenth New York
volunteer artillery, amounting 70 one Thousand ana
esvsosytwo dollars eighty cents which vas duly paid ey
check covering the above stated amount favor Of said
sherman and forwarded BY letter 70 Msssrs Brown \
mont as stated said United States government was
swinded the amount Of sum Of six hundred dollars
spscncasion 2-In this that he the said Major W. W.
Trowbridge, Fourteenth New York volunteer artillery
ssu,ts VIM Babcock and Robert Purcell, did defraud
tbsm their bourties OF three hundred dollars each,
which had been placed in his hands by The proper su
An his a watersown, Jefferson county N r, on or
about the 8th January, 1884.
10 which charge specifications the accused pleaded
Fmpiso The court, having maturely considered the
evidence adducsd, finds the accused as foliows;-
or the nrst spccinoatiou sguilty, except the words
$50 the amount OF six hundred dollars"
or the second specification, "guilty.".
Cr the charge aguilty.n - l4 A.is
SryrryoT-Apd the court do therefore sentence him,
MAJOR W. ". Troworiage, Four,een.h New notk voan,
che proper authorities six hundred dollars and that his
crime and place Of abode and punishment be pub
shed in tho principal newspapers IN tins cry ana IN tho
III the Major General commanding has examined, with
eaa cars the proceedings OF the court In the case Of
Esios v. w. Trowbrldse, sf the Fourteenth New York
heavy artillery and with great hesitation has decided 70
isto execution. His hesitation has not arisen from
ooubt OF the guilt OF the accused but from an extreme
rosssst irregusrties and Be- has had grsa, dcnty in
deciding whether such sanction would nos be more in
% hs public y sesn az. ns mpup x 81 an
We government and appropratng 10 his own use tho
ne rs q The irregularities referred 10 Is the omission
q tAe Judge Advooses Of whom there were three TO
sign the daily record At the court Tue signatures OF the
q shs sh sy % appended psceedus
- the last day. Ibe omission violation Of usage and
I1' S0' S1 he President the
Shs 10 not such authentication as ID prescribed.
On page 10 Of the record the Judge Advocate offered
evidence OF the admission OF OF the parties 70 The
FRAUD OF which the accused charged the accused
esjec,ed, and it was admitted. On page 30 the &C,
- BY tho Judge Advocate, and was excluded.
On page 81 tho Judge Advocate offered like
evidence aud was admitted, no objection having boon
made by the accused. There b no apparent cause for
shls Inconsistency 10 The ruling Of the court II the
sv,dcncs were properly admitted In the one case u
should not have been excluded Ia the other, aud the
sosrt staads upon the record In the discredable posi-
sion OF having received testimony when onsretby the
Judge Advocate and excluded like tssmcsy when offered
BY the accused Ths questions admitted in these cases.
Il true decided nothing, and the one excluded could
have elected nothing having any eria bearing on the
Issue They related 10 the nature OF coursct made by
abe accused. II was always In his power 10 produce &C.
and he doubtless would have produced II II IL bad been
essential 10 his exculpaton.
The accused alleges in his defence that he could have
proved, by certain witnesses, whom no asked 20 have
summoned ell the accusations against him 10 have been
nnfounded. These witnesses had for the most part gone
20 the 1eld and impossible TO produce them. Ihe
court martial assembled the 7th Of Apr the witnos
s were then within the department. and the request 10
save then summoned not made until the 3D. OF May
When they nsd gone II the accused relied on these w.t.
Deesce TOT DIS exculpaton was through his negli
genoe mat lncy were not called for when the trial
nenced Inc speedcations forth the specdc
manner the offences with which he was charged, and
be could nave been 10 no uncertainty the evidence
ne required 70 refUe them Moreover, II was
competent FOR him, under section " the
sot q Congress approved ID II March, 1851 TO have mad
She depostons OF tbcso witnesses taken scs Revised
Army Regulations for 1868, page SAIL, and he should
have made the request when advised by the court on
She "a May, thai their attendance could sct be pro-
Jhe preliminary objection II ihs ,rec,ss 10 As trial,