COURT-MARTIAL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1521, 17 August 1912, Page 5

COURT-MARTIAL.

A SERGEANT-MAJOR ON TRIAL. (By Telegraph.—Prcns AtEoclatlon.l Gore, August 10. A> court-martini is Ix'ing held hero t<v> day. Sergeant-Major Sutton, of tho Permanent Staff, is charged with conduct prejudicial to good order mid ...military discipline. It is alleged Hint on July. 30 ho was ordered by Captain Glontlining to proceed to Balfour as his headquarters from August 1, and replied, "I refuse-, to do so," or words to that effect. Tho Court is _ composed of Major Grant, V.C. (president), Captains Sandlo aiul Grant, and Licutcnauts Ifra-scr and Hay. Captain llickoy, D.K.0., aiiiicarcd for the prosecutors, and Mr. Cochrauo appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Counsel objected to (ho Court, submitting lhat'tho case was not one to be tried by a court-martial. Under Section 07 of tho Defence Act, tho Court should bo a court of inquiry, and tho matter should bo referred to the Minister for Defence to adjudicate thereon. Ho contended that the matter was purely a Departmental one, not a question of military discipline. The offence, if committed," was not serious, and was not defined in the manual of Military Law as ono to bo tried by a court-martial.

Tho point was deliberated.on, and Uio Court overruled the objection.

Captain Glendining, in his evidence, said that when he gave the order to Sutton to go to Balfour, accused said, "No quarters there." Witness asked if ho refused to • obey, and ho replied, "No, I don't. There aro no quarters there." 110 again asked Sutton if ho.still refused, and accused said, "I. refuse to do so," or words to that effect.

Cross-examined, witness said Sutton reported in a highly improper manner as to tho quarters—to tho effect that tho Department would have.' to inaUo other arrangements. , Counsel: Was (hat all?

Witness considered i(; beneath Ilia dignity of a sergeant-major to livo in a two or throe-roomed house. ' The Court is still sitting.