COURT-MARTIAL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 4, 29 September 1917, Page 8

COURT-MARTIAL

TRIAL OP THOMPSON

-'' THJS CASE ' CLOSES

'..'..-■tTSe' court-martial •at -Featherstoa of .'.' Private-H. H. Thompson was concluded .-', yesterday... ..;. ~- ~• , ■•'.,■'■_ .The charge against Thompson is knowsingly making a false statement affecting -... the character of an officor.' : ; .The charge is laid under section 27, ..:. 6\ibsection (2), of the Army Act, which ■■•;.(inter alia/ provides as follows-.—"Every ;,.: person subject to military law who commits any of the fallowing offences, that ;is to say,-being an'officer or soldier, in \. ',making '.a .complaint wjiere he thinks '.'himself/wronged, knowingly makes any .'.'■ false statement affecting the character of f an officer' or : soldier ■. .'". shall, on convic•;tioh;by court-martial, be. liable to suf-,:.fer-imprisonment,, or such less punlshiV"'; merit, as it in this Act mentioned." ~.'; .The statement made by Thompson was contained in a:letter written by him to 'the camp ■ authorities.' " The statement ;::';«s:-;-. ./■.• ;; ''.-"*■/■■ ;..;. No'medical examination ,of me to ; -; of any value when either, examiner :r;> : 'isV-noficeabiy under the influence of S v :^.'alcoholic liquor. • This was so in the . .;">-.case of .the. examiner reporting on '~f.';;.J;';.'me. ,f .';;.J;';.'me oh.August 8. ■..'■. ."; /.The Court; which heard the case con"Vtsisted' of Colonel C:. E. Macdonald, J-. J.G.S., president;- Colonel D. Pringle,, ■Second Wellington-West Coast Mounted : ' ; 'i; Rifles; and Major R. Neave, Essex Kegi- ■':■■'■'■ ment. ! '. V.'Second Lieutenant G. H: E. Ulrich, :'Thirtv-first Reinforcements, prosecuted, w; and.Mr. A. Hogg (Wanganui) appeared i,: as counsel in defence of the accused. :■■:■/: Thompson, in his evidence, said that "when he went before tho medical board .'::' he intended -to ask the board a question, ; bnt;Hotop at once fihot out the quesj- "■'■': tionj: "Why are you not at the front?" • ; v Thompson replied that it ivas because he AS-was unfit. Hotop asked: "How do you S'know 'that?", Thompson answered: "By ■v 1 reference to my files" in the Records Of- ; fice." Hotop asked': "What right have :'■ youi to see' those files?"- Thompson's .reply was that he worked in tho Records 'I Office, and handled the files. Thompson ' -said he then asked w.hy ho had been- > .boarded. Hotop said he did not know, 'and that'even if he did, Thompson had i 'Bo right to know. Thompson insisted '■'that he had a right to know, and Major ■'■■ Robertson gave him a jeason. i ■ Corporal' Walker stated that what ho ■had! heard had made him observant , : ';'tvhen he got into the board room: 'Hotop '"I\. was abrupt and: was, flushed'.-in tho face. .:'• When asked if he would persists this ;- ; -Ijelief in the face of/evidence by three ..(''doctors that Hotoo was sotier and nor-; ' ''ihaLhe said "No," but that at the time -'lie thought Hotop was under the -in- ; :-' ; fluenc6 of liquor.. ... Private Wilson-deposed that. Hotop was ..''flushed in the face, and'that his mah- :., ner.'was abrupt. He would not say that .Hotop'.was under tho influence of li-j.-'-quor'i.■'.'.■: .'- ■:■.''■■■■ .-"•;/■. ■>-'■■' ■■■■■ Mr.- Hogg'.addressed the Court. He /'said that it would be admitted- that the :■') statements referred to Hotop, but the ; : T "p'oint. for • the Court to consider ! was i-'. whether the statement was knowingly \..,false. . He submitted'.that Thompson ''•: ! /had honestly believed what he stated. ■On that point the Court would have to ■ / 'hold: that Thompson ' was not guilty. /*. The prosecutor, addressing the Court, - said that: from the evidence a reasonable ; man would-not take Hotop to'have been . /under the influence of liquor. l Because '.';-, of a flushed appearance and an 'irritable '■manner,, there was not a right to come ■ to the conclusion that a man was under /the influence of liquor. There was'an- ■ other element in the case, and that'was • '■the element of motive. When Thompson '.-heard that he had been passed; as-fit,-he. Vwae a very angry man, but when he- ■ wrote the first letter ho did. not men,':tion'.that he thought Captain Hotop was .".under the : influence of liquor—did not ■ it till two weeks later. He ad- ; - mitted-that if the finding,of the board ; had been different there would have been '-' no complaint. He was examined in 1916 '...by Hotop; and there had been no com-•-.piaint. ..Thompson and his two witnesses •were men with'grievances against Hotop. The witnesses had been, sharply spoken '<■ ' to by Hotop. TheV were not men who -went to. the board' independently and came to tho conclusion;that Hotop was /drunk; they were men -who crossed ' .'-swords with him and had a grievance 'with, him; The question was: "Had the -accused" produced sufficient evidence for : -making the accusation he < has made ? ;■ That was for the Court to decide. 'The'presidents You mean "'knowing "■ the-falsity of the statement"? ■ :. - The prosecutor: Yes: I submit that '-that, is the issue before- the Court— /whether the "'■ accused', had., reasonable .'••'grounds for ..making that;false statement - —reasonable grounds for believing it to .be;'true.' . ■ .-, The president asked the accused, if he -.- wished to address the Court. .",'•"' Accused said that he relied absolutely 'on. the military law. ' ;■'. The Court then closed. The decision ...will be known later. \