The Washington times., 1905-12-30
Bill of Exceptions
Is Filed by Theall

A-NNAI ObiS- hu, dec. JO.-AS SUP
Elemental to mis- argument MIR. Theall
last evening submitted the following
statement to Admiral Sands:
Carvel Hall, Annapolis. Maryland.
December %. 1905.
Sir: /. As counsel for the accused,
Trenmon Coffin, jr.. midshipman, L. S.
Navy. stationed at L. S. Naval Acad-
Smy, who was tried by court-martial by
your order. convened at the Naval Scad-
emy. Annapolis. Md, on December 2S.
1906. have the honor to submit the fol-
lowing statement for your consideration.
by reason of the power vested in you as
reviewing authority.
2 also have the honor to request that
the record of proceedings in tins case
be forwarded TO the Navy Department
Secretary of the Navy, and that this
statement be forwarded to the Navy
Department as a part of the record in
the case, for its consideration.
Bill of Particulars.
5. 1t is respectfully submitted that the
court erred in the following particulars
(a) In allowing the testimony of Mid
shipman Kimbrough over the objection
of counsel for the accused. in violation
of parag graph ,, article 1887. of the United
States Navy Regulations, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the said Midshipman
I(imbrough could not identify the ac-
cused.
tbl In sustaining the objection of the
Judge advocate TO the question by coun-
sci for the accused, on page - of the
record wherein il is expressly stated
that the object of such testimony was
40 impeach the credibility OF the witness.
With reference TO the testimony of
oh cnpCi.l
tion Is invited TO paragraph 1881 OF tbs.
Regulations for the Government OF the
Navy, 1906, wherein IL is stated as fol-
lows under the head OF Recognition OF
the Accused:
The witness shall also, if called 10
testify to the acts Of the accused. be re-
ouired 10 identify him. either by name
or otherwise. TO the end THAI MS testi-
mony shall appear relevant 20 tiN case
Testimony of KimbIough-
An examination of the record VIII
show that Midshiprnan Kimb-ough not
only failed to recognize the accused.
but was asked the direct question as
TO whether or not the accused was the
midshipman who had caused him 70
stand on bis head. 10 which he replied:
Il cannot identify the accused.
In spite OF this. however, Midshipman
I<tmbrough was allowed 10 testify TO
the acts alleged to have been done by
the accused. covering several pages of
the record and thereby violated the
above navy regulation. II is respectiul-
" submitted that this objection is not
of a technical nature, nor is it a strict
construction OF any rule of evidence,
out is a specific article Of the navy
regulations. placed there for the g'iit-
ance OF corrts-martlal.
Furthermore the safeguard thrown
about the accused by this regulation mas
been flagrantly Violated, because the
testimony of the witnesses FOR the pros
ecution shows that there were others
present beside the accused from ume 20
time while the alleged acts OF hazing
were said TO have been committed IL
Is therefore respectfirli,' siiisEE;if, - -
IN is lust to such case as the one
under consideration that thls equation
was intended to apply.
There is but one effect possible upon
the minds OF the court, and that i 10
fbe nreiudice aud the decided detriment
OF the accused by the introduction Of
such testimony as given by MidShipman
Kimbrough II is therefore submitted
that this error is vital, and renders the
entire proceeding null and VOID and Of
no effect.
Impeachment Question Proper.