Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-10-27


and had been told he was to wear the
uniform that private generally wore.
Witness said In reply TO question from
the court that he was the brother OF the
accused. Being asked II he was present
at all the meetings OF his company during
the month OF July, Lieutenant Hartman
said he could only tell from the roll
book. The Judge-Advocate then asked
how many times the witness was present
at company meetings during the past six
months.
present seventeen times" responded
the Lieutenant.
How many times absent?"
Twelve"
The Judge-Advocate Intercepted the
witness as to whether he made any sort
of investigation OF the matter when he
arst came into knowledge that his bro
Their had been reduced TO ranks, and the
answer was in the negative. II only
heard officially last night that my brother
was reduced to ranks" There was then
some examination OF the witness as TO
what he considered sufficient in the mat
ter OF giving and receiving Of orders,
after which Judge-Advocate Woon asked
the witness II he did not tell his brother
that he was acting very foolishly in not
putting on his uniform ana going into
the annual inspection.
"Nfy recollection Of this matter is that
told him he was acting very unwisely,'
replied the Lieutenant. Witness said ne
did not think IL was his duty 10 nave
told his brother he should obey his or
ders. lie admitted telling Captain Shack
elford that he thought his brother should
have been reduced to ranks.
Lieutenant Hartman, continuing his tes-
a. 1.Fft n
pounded by the Judge-Advocate, said
that he had been absent from so many
drills lately because he had had two
leaves of absence of sixty days each,
granted by his captain upon written re-
quests.
Did you not know that your captain
could not grant leaves OF absence for
longer period than two weeks?" inquired
Judge-Adyocate Woon.
IL did not i supposed he knew what
he was doing" was that reply OF the wilt
ness.
Some other unimportant questions were
asked the witness, and he stood aside.
This ended the testimony in this case,
and the court went into executive ses-
sion to consider the evidence. neither Mr..
Folkes nor the Judge advocate desiring
20 argue the case.
While the court was considering the mat
ter of its finding, Lieutenant Hartman
approached Captain Woon on the outside
and asked him If he thought he mad
treated him right in making a remark
he had before the court relative TO his
understanding of orders The Judge-Ad-
vocate said he did think so. 81 want
TO say TO you, then. Captain" said Lieu
tenant Hartman, that take exceptions
to your remark"
NUha
| said" rejoined Captain Woon, and the
gentlemen separated.
CASE OF PRIVATE MILLER.
After a verdict had been agreed upon
in the Hartman case, the court-martial
doors were thrown open again and the
case Of Private c. Miller, OF Company A.
was taken up. Private Miller stands
charged with absence from drills. conduct
to the prejudice of good order and mill
tary discipline. He was arraigned and
pleaded guilty to the specifications and
not guilty to the charge-that is, he ad-
mitted that he had been absent from the
meetings Of his company but stated that
he had not been so to the prejudice Of
military discipline, for the reason that his
failure to attend the drills was that he
had been sick In this connection the
accused presented certificates from his
physician and from his employers, stating
that he had been sick.
Sergeant j. b. Metzger testified that
Private Miller entered in June. 1885, and
that his conduct and attendance had been
good until last May; since then he had
missed eleven drills
Sergeant William Gibson stated that he
found Private Miller sick in bed when
he went to summon him to appear before
the court.
The court went into executive session
here TO consider this case and when n
conclusion had been reached 1t adjourned
until tonight at $50 o'clock.