SECOND COURTMARTIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 5 April 1928, Page 3

SECOND COURTMARTIAL

CHARGE AGAINST DEWAR. {United Service.) (Received this day at 10.40 a.m.) GIBRALTAR, April 4. At the opening of the trial against Dewar, the prosecutor. Rear Admiral Boyle, objected to the inclusion in the Court’s personnel of Rear Admiral 'Meade, who participated in the preliminary enquiry, also Rear Admiral Tomkinson, who had .seen the preliminary papers. ’ The Court upheld the objection and replaced them with Captains Monroe and Bedford. 'Hie Court also upheld an objection to Co I lard’s presence, because he was a witness. Dewar often smiled while the famous letter was read. He pleaded not guilty. Dewar is conducting his own defence with. Kimball as an advisory friend. Ihe first witness was the Paymaster, '‘Lieutenant-Commander Crichton, the df'aptain’s secretary on the Royal Oak. Dewar cross-examining him asked: ■'‘Did you jhink mo the sort of person to lose my temper with the Admiral.” “Never.” **.Oicl you see evidence of nation in the wardroom as the results ol the incidents described in my letter.” “Yes, certainly.” The Prosecutor: “It was apparent to you that Admiral Collat'd and the Captain were at loggerheads.” “Yes.”

The next witness was Admiral Collard who said his relations with Dewar were perfectly correct from a service viewpoint, but were not intimate. He found it impossible to make friends with Dewar, alt bough lie attempted it.

The Prosecutor: “Did you piece implicit.confidence in Dewar.” Witness: “I can’t say I did.”

When the Prosecutor objected to Dewar quoting from Daniel’s letter, Dewar produced a letter from the Admiralty .stating they were sending Admiral Collard to Gibraltar to enable the defence to elicit the necessary facts.

The Court'considered the Admiralty letter privately and announced it would admit the evidence, provided references to third parties were kept oat.

Collard said the Admiralty proposed Dewar as Flag Captain. He did not know Dewar previously but raised no objection. Flo admitted saving be was fed up with Dewar, because lie did not roach his idea of what a. Flag Captain .should be. He should bo the Admiral’s right hand man on every occasion. The only serious complaints were the dance and ladder incidents, but he was often forbearing, hoping to complete bis year’s appointment without a breach or dispute.

In his evidence at the previous trial, Collard insisted be did not call the bandmaster a . Ho said lie was surmised to learn five bandsmen were prepared to swear they beard the word used.

Dewar said: “Imagine yourself in the place of the bandmaster, would you not l>e discouraged.” Collat'd rolled: “I really cannot imagine myself a bandmaster.” ""Witness denied threatening the Chaplain with a court martial for hr accusing him thercanont hut pointed out to the Chaplain it was a most serious thing to accuse him falsely. He did not remember telling the Chaplain that severe imprisonment was given people falsely accusing a flag officer. He congratulated Daniel

on his tactfulness in settling the incideiit hut did not thank him for getting him out of a damned nasty hole. Dewar—lf you had been captain,

trying to inako this slii]> 'efficient, '<6«v would you not have been discouraged ? Jf Collar,l No ; 1 should liave told the Admiral I wished to go to smother ship. Downs'—Would not the- omission to return a captain’s salute affect discipline ? ■Col lard emphatically-—Not the discipline of a good ship. It does not .depend on .such trivial rubbish. Dewar —What is your definition of discipline? Witness,—The present interpretation of discipline will be as the Court laid down. Ttewtar —T respectfully submit mv protest he entered in the minutes •». against the limitations placed on my cross examination. Th© Prosecutor objected to Dewar referring to an. interview with Collard. boeauso the conversation was privileged. The President said, he had given Dewar the greatest possible latitude, ■but was not prepared to let this go further.

Dewar again asked that this protest should he recorded. Collarcl agreed that a- captain was justified in reporting incidents prejudicial to discipline, hut should report verbally. A written complaint was on-

ly justified when all other methods were exhausted. He denied telling the Court of Inquiry that Dewar had been disloyal, from the moment he joined the Royal Oalc. He admitted that he told the Court of Inquiry that Dewar nearly caused a collision at Malta on March ath. by failing to give Collard certain information. Collard explained that the Royal Oak and I’amillies were entering the harbour to numbered buoys. Ho ordered the Royal Oak to enter first. Unknown to him the numbers of the buoys had been charged mid the Royal Oak

blocked the fairway. He had the uts most difficulty in stopping the Ramil--1 les in time. A good Flag Captain would have told him that he was sending in the ships in the wrong order. Collard felt he had been let ’ down. Dewar asked why Collard had not complained before. Collard—l thought further fault-fiml-war had told the Staff Officer that a warning signal .should have lieen sent the Ramilles, hut lie still considered Dewar’s behaviour on that occasion an example of deliberate disloyalty. He added that ho considered the Admiral could take charge anywhere he thought , Ciit. ■ A Mnster-at-Arms gave evidence of a rumour on the mess decks that Ad--mirat Collard told Dewar lie was of no more use than a midshipman.