Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-10-26
COURT MARITAL SITS.
PRIvATEs BELTS AND HARTMAN
ARRAIGNED AT THE ARMORY.
CAPTAIN HAYVS RANK QUESTIONED
He Has Not Applied for Examine
ton, and His Election as COM
mandent OF Co. II IN Held TO He
Void-DetsiIs of the Trials.

| the court, as follows:
Major +. i. Sutton, quartermas.er.
First Brigade; Captain Gray Bossieux,
Company A, First Regiment, and First
Lieutenant J.. l.. Cheatwood, Company
a, Fourth Battalion Virginia Volunteers,
are detailed as members Of the general
court-martial appointed by Special Or
der No. 20. September 49, 1897, from these
| headquarters.
by order Of the Governor and Com
maader-.n-C Chief
CHARLES J. ANDERSON,
Acknowledgement"
The court was called TO order at $50
by Major william f.. slmons. president,
with the following officers present:
Major l.. T. Christian, Captain &. Gray
/ Bossieux, Captain Il. j. Euker Captain
| Morgan r. Mills, Captain X. =. shackel-
ford, Captain w. S. i. Mayo, Lieutenant
II. A. Williams, Lieutenant l.. l.. Cheat
wood, and the Judge-Advocate, Captain
| Frank NJ. Woon. Sergeant Gibson was
the orderly of the court.
Captain Lanier sent a letter stating
! that ne would be unable to be present
/ through pressing business, and Major
|
| former occasions.
TWO MEMBERS CHALLENGED.
The first case taken up was that Of
| Private a. 3. Belts, of Company c.
| Upon the order for the court being read
| to the prisoner. he stated that he had
| no objection to its constitution, but the
| JudgeAdvocate challenged Captain
| Shackelford, as being a material witness
N ha of xuif
The Judge-Advocate then challenged
Captain w. S. r. Mayo, on the ground
that Captain Mayo had not applied for
examination within one month after his
election as commander Of COmpanv y,
Of the Blues. He swore Captain Mayo,
and asked whether he had applied for
examination. and being answered in the
negative, he Informed the court that his
only reason for challenging Captain
Mayo was that the legality Of the courts
action should not hereafter be questioned
or it's verdict set aside through any
irregularity that might exist in its
construction. He held that Captain
Mavo held no commission and was not
entitled 10 his rank.
In answer to the president the Judge
Advocate said that Mr.. Mayo was not
even entitled to the rank of Lieutenant.
in that he vacated that rank when elect
ed as their captain by the members OF
Company + Blues Battalion.
The court was cleared. and after de-
iiberating for some time the challenge
Of tht Judge-Advocate was sustained
and Captain Mayo left the room.
ABSENT FROM DRILLS.
Mr. Belts was arralgned and the
charge and specifications read. These
charged him with absenting himself from
company drills on divers and sundry
dates from January T. 1887; with absence
without leave, in violation OF the afu-
Giles Of war from battalion drills and
from the annual inspection. To all OF
these charges the accused pleaded not
guilty.
CAPTAIN Shackelford was the first wit
ness examined. He stated that Belts
was enlisted in Company c, and that he
had been absent from the regular drills
of his company as charged. On being
asked II he could swear TO the dates OF
his own knowledge. the witness de-
INJURED ana said he could not say with
out reference to his roll-book, as ne
MIGHT have been absent on one or two
occasions himself Upon the roll-oook
being brought. Captain Shackelford saia
that with the exception or Marcn Z-u
and August 9th he could state positlVey
that the accused was absent IRON drih
on seventeen occasions He also stateo
that Belts was absent from battalion
drills May 21st. oath, and June Hit anu
nth. When excused he had been marked
present. On September 10Th, the date OF
the inspection. accused was absent,
though he knew that the inspection was
10 take place. and was physically capa-
bic of being resent
WAS AT WORK THAT NIGHT.
The Judpe-Advocate rested his case.
rho accused was asked If he had any
witnesses to introduce and he said he
would like his employer to be heard
The Judge Advocate then INTRODUCED
letter from Mr.. Morris, which stated that
Retts was at work at his store on the
night of the inspection. He bad been
absent from work very often on account
of sickness, and when questioned why he
had not asked permission 10 go to the
insnection. he stated that he had been
awav from his work so much he did not
lil,a IN do so. Mr.. Morris closed with
an earnest plea that Belts should not be
punished.
CAPTAIN Shackelford was recalled and
stated that he had seen Belts several
DAYS before the inspection, and he mad
promised to be present. He also learned
from Mr. Morris that accused might
have been present il he had asked Tor
leave and also from one OF the boys
employed with Belts in Mr.. Morris's store.
that he had obtained leave, and would
readily have worked In the place OF ac-
cused II he had known that he wished
10 get off. Furthermore, Captain Shack
elford stated that one Of the members OF
Company c had told him that when Belts
lnSDpctiOn.
declared with an oath that he would not
attend. In reply to a question from the
Court he stated that Belts was enlisted
october s, 1886, being then 10 years Of
age.
After the Court had deiiberated its YER
dict there was a brief recess.
THE HARTMAN CASE.
The case of Private J. III. Hartman was
then taken up. The accused was repre-
sented by Mr.. Minetree Folkes, attorney
at law The general orders convening
the court were read. and Captain Shackel-
ford was again challenged by the Judge
Advocate, and the challenge was sus-
tanned by the Court.
The charges and specifications were
then read. They were disobedience to
orders. refusing TO be inspected. and
visiting The Armory after he had been
placed under arrest: failing TO attend
drills on numerous dates from April 9Th
In the present year, and conduct unbe-
coming soldier and calculated to preju
dice the good order and military discip-
line of the First Regiment, Virginia Vol
unteers, In using language and being
mutinous. To all of these charges and
specifications the accused pleaded not
guilty.