Crampton Court-martial

Taihape Daily Times, 13 February 1919, Page 5

Crampton Court-martial

WANGANUI, February 12 Donald Kerr Porter, who was quar-termaster-sergeant at the barracks said Wilson was in witness’s office on several occasions as the pack was kept there. The pack wias a very heavy one. When men were awarded pack drill they came in for it. On one occasion accused and Sergt. Smith brought Wilson in. Wilson was knocked about until he put it on. The accused then caught Wilson by the hair and shook his head. He then ordered Wilson’s hair to be cut off. This was eventually done. Witness also remembered that accused caught Wilson by the neck and pushed his head down. This was after the pack was on. Accused and Sergt. Smith were yelling and bawling continuously at the man. It was mostly, bad language. Wilson said nothing at all. The accused, James William Crampton, said he served in the Main Body at Gallipoli. He was; wounded and invalided back. He then served at Samoa and bn returning to New Zealand was promoted to officer commanding the Detention B'arracks at Wanganui, taking charge in March 1919. Ho received verbal instruction from headquarters that no conscientious objectors would be sent to Wanganui Barracks, .only shirkers men who had been dealt with by Military Service Boards on either religious or other grounds.

Witness claimed it was Ms duty to see the men carried out their duties and in the interests of obedience and discipline to inflict such punishment as a. ease warranted. He claimed he had the right to use what force was necessary when a man obstinately refused to do his duty. "In the case of Wilson, in addition to refusing to call witness “sir,''’ he showed dumb insolence. On April 22nd of 1918, witness gave Wilson three days’ solitary confinement on bread and water, and ordered him to be deprived of his mattress. Witness spent three-quarters of an hour with Wilson in the cell trying to get him to take the right path. After Wilson had clone solitary confinement witness asked him if he had any complaints. Witness replied: No, no—complaints. Wilson also said lie was not going to “Sir” any nfan. Witness replied: “You will ‘sir’ me before I am finished with you.” Witness described how Sergt. Smith and Corporal Parmenter tried to get Wilson to put his pack on. Sergt, Smith show.ctT him, but Wilson refused. Witness then ordered that it be put on him Wilson offered a sulky resistance. After that he addressed witness as “sir,” and there was no further trouble. There was no truth in the statement fhat witness seized Wilson by the hair. He had not touched the man in any way. He gave an absolute denial to Porter’s evidence. After Wilson went heard of the letter in “Truth/’ but rfs it was an irregular proceeding he did not take any notice of ft at the time. Then a communication came frpm headquarters giving the names of eight men whom it evas alleged had

signed it. Witness made inquiries, and the men voluntarily signed a document (produced) denying cruelty or that they signed a letter to ' ‘ Truth.’ ’ Two of the men said all they did" was to sign a blank paper. Witness did not offer any inducement to the men to sign it. The court-martial will be resumed at 10 o’clock this TO-DAY’S SITTINGS. ACCUSED CLOSES HIS CASE. WANGANUI, this day. The Crampton court-marital was re-* sumed this s morning. Accused, examined as to his record, said, he had charge of the Detention Barracks from March 22nd, 1918, to the present time; During that period 188 men and 25 casuals had passed through the barracks. In all cases he had passed men back fit -for active service. No complaint bad ever been made against him by any of these men, through the ordinary channels. Accused’s case then closed, and the prosecutor addressed the Court, submitting the case was a straightforward one. There was only accused’s unsupported evidence against it, and he submitted it i was clearly proved. Mr. Loughnan, w’fio appeared for the defence, had taken a considerable responsibility in closing his ease when he had other witnesses who could, at- , tend. He had done this because was not sufficient proof to teonvict Crampton. Counsel pointed out contradictions in the evidence "of Smith as against Porter. The latter sta’fed there were two serious assaults, while Wilson, though the prosecutor said he ! was not ill-used till the packs were put on his back, and other details of the evidence were contradicted by Porter. Wilson was a conscientious objector. Was* there any conscientious objection to calling Crampton “Sir?” Wilson went to the barracks with the intention of making trouble. Crampton came before the Court to clear his character of the charges against him by a totally irresponsible tribunal ap-i pointed under goodness knows what authority, which took evidence which was not evidence, dealing with hearsay matters, as if they were evidence a®S coming to a judgment on cases which were not sworn. Crampton. was not given an opportunity to refute or contradict these statements, and be was placarded throughout the country as guilty of gross violent treatment of soldiers under bis charge. Counsel concluded by asking for an honourable acquittal. 1

Captain Baldwin, judge advocate,' then addressed th Court, pointing out it had no official knowledge of Magis l trate Hewitt’s inquiry. This, however, had been published and debated in th© country, but must be absolutely eliminated from the Court’s mind to prevent pre-eonceived ideas from obtruding.

The Court reserved its decision, anti proceeded to hear the second charge of permitting unnecessary force to be used, by the staff to compel Private H. Wilson to do pack drill. The accused pleaded not guilty.

Wilson’s evidence was similar to the first charge,- the kernel of at being that be was pushed and punched along to make him march, Crampton witnessing the staff doing this. He admitted he would not have moved without this, and was putting up a passive resistance. Ho -went to the barracks with the fixed determination not to do military duty.