William Slade Vincent

Appendix 5.0
The Court Martial of Lieutenant William Slade Vincent M.C.

[Below is a full transcript of the trial written by a court reporter with errors in spelling and grammar included.]

The trial commenced at 11 o’clock and opened with the Prosecution calling witnesses.

Transcripts of the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses have been included below, together with a transcript of the evidence William gave at the trial.

After the first two prosecution witnesses gave evidence, a legal argument was decided by the court as the Prosecutor did not want to call the third witness for the prosecution as the witness turned out to be a “hostile” witness.

Prosecution Witness Statements

First Witness for The Prosecution:
2nd Lieutenant J.R.T. Marsham, Royal Army Medical Corps, B Company, Southern Command Labour Centre,
being duly sworn in, is examined by the prosecutor.

“At 9.30pm on 8th July 1918, while doing my rounds at the Special Division Hospital Chisledon as Sick Officer Adjutant I met the accused Lieut Vincent whom I now identify. He was drunk. He was in between two blocks or huts. I placed him under arrest in charge of Lieut Drummond. The accused was unable to walk properly and speak properly. He was staggering. It was very hard to understand what he said. I have known the accused for about three weeks. His speech that evening I considered different from his normal speech.”

Crossexamined by counsel for the accused.

“The accused was from coming from the South Block toward the North Block when I saw him first. He only stopped when he met me and I went up to him. I took him back to the South Block. I mean he went back in my company to his bed-room. It was there I placed him under arrest. He was not on duty and nor due to go on duty. As far as I know he would have remained in his room when I left. I have no reason to think he would leave it. The only reasons I had for thinking the accused drunk are the ones I have stated. I cannot swear where he had been that day. I had to give him an arm into his room from the time I met him. He was walking badly. I did not know he suffered from trench feet. After leaving him in his room I returned in about 15 minutes. He was then undressed and in bed. I consider I was doing my duty in placing him under arrest. I would have placed him under arrest again in similar circumstances”.

The Prosecution declines to crossexamine this witness.

Examined by the Court.

“In my opinion the accused was not fit to carry out military duties. Normally his method of walking was good”.

The witness withdraws.

Second Witness for The Prosecution:
Lieut. A.T. Densham R.A.M.C. [Qualified Medical Practitioner],
being duly sworn in, is examined by the prosecutor.

“As orderly officer on July 8th at 9.55pm at Chisledon Special Hospital in consequence of a report I visited the accused. I held converse with him. In my opinion he was drunk. I base on his general appearance the rambling nature of his remarks, the alcoholic odour of his breath. I left the room for 20 seconds during which he left his bed. In returning to it as he did immediately when ordered I noted his gait was unsteady. He continually requested all he wanted was thousands of Huns. He made this remark in reply to the previous remarks I made. His gait was lurching and he assisted himself by the furniture. I identify the accused Lieut Vincent”.

Crossexamined by the counsel for the accused.

“The accused bed room is quite small. There are two beds there but I cannot say what furniture. There is sufficient room to walk up the middle. It is not more than 12 feet long either way. He walked 8 feet about in my presence. He had his boots off. I did not examine his feet. I could not say if they were tender or not. I put my ear close to his mouth when he spoke because of my deafness. I don’t think the light was poor. I remained three minutes with the accused. During the main part he was in bed. The whole nature of his conversation was but I cannot remember any phrases except the one about the Huns. I heard he was under arrest. I believe I suggested he had been dining at Swindon. He told me some name I could not hear but it certainly was not Swindon”.

“There is no official definition of drunkedness but I consider a man drunk if by reason if he is incapable of carrying out orders efficiently. I did not make an examination. I was not entitled to. I did not consider the accused able to carry out his duties efficiently although he was in bed and I had no proper conversation with him. A third person was in the room when I entered. If he considered the accused sober I would attribute it to the fact that different men have different standards of drunkedness. I do not consider mine a very severe standard. Apparently it differs from Lieut Drummond and from many others. It is largely a matter of opinion. I believe Lieut Drummond was left in charge of the accused. The smell of intoxicants is far from being a sign of drunkedness”.

Prosecution declines to re-examine this witness.

The witness withdraws.

Legal Argument Breaks Out.

At this stage the Prosecution intimates that he does not intend to call the third witness for the Prosecution.

Counsel for the accused submits that he should be called and orders for him to be called.

The court is closed to consider the application. In view of R.P.75 and partnote 2 thereto, the Court decide that the witness shall be called by the Prosecution. The Court is reopened and the decision made known.

Third Witness for The Prosecution:
2nd Lieut. E. Drummond, RAF, a patient at the Hospital
being duly sworn in, is examined by the prosecutor.

“About 9.20pm on 8th July 1918 the accused Lieut Vincent was placed under my charge. It was explained the accused was under arrest and I was to remain there until the orderly officer arrived. I waited in the room until he arrived then I left. The accused showed signs of having something to drink. He was talking superficially but in my opinion he was not drunk”.

Crossexamined by the counsel for the accused.

“I was about 10 or 15 minutes with the accused. I may have been 25 minutes. He was partly undressed when I arrived and finished undressing and got into bed in my presence. I had not seen him walk at all. He was standing in the passage with someone when I was on my way to my room. At that distance he seemed quite normal. The light in the room was not good. We had a few general remarks. His remarks were superficial and light. I would not say they were quite natural. He was not serious. I think he would have pulled himself together to perform duty if called upon. The accused was not disorderly while I was there. I sleep in the next room and if he had been disorderly, I would have heard”.

Prosecution declines to re-examine this witness.

Examined by the Court.

“I was not told on what charge the accused was under arrest. I have known the accused between two and three months. He is naturally a light hearted man. His conversation that evening was a little more lively than usual”.

The witness withdraws.

William’s Evidence to the Court Martial.

The accused takes the stand at the place from which other witnesses give their evidence. The accused is duly sworn in and is examined by his counsel.

“I am 19 years of age. I have held a commission since 1915. I have been to the Front 3 times and returned. I have been wounded twice and have the Military Cross. On 8th July 1918 I left the hospital at 2.30pm. I went to Coate where there is a lake or reservoir 3 miles from the camp. I walked there. I rowed on the water had tea their and went for a walk afterwards. About 8.30pm I went to the Sun Inn. I left there at 8.55pm.I had 3 or four whiskey and sodas certainly no more. I had no intoxicants that evening before or after leaving the Sun Inn. I walked back to the Lake to meet a taxi and arrived at the camp about 9.25pm. I left the taxi and walked about 300 yards to my quarters and put my hat and stick on my bed. I then went to find Lieut Marsham. I wished to report myself present as the roll should be called at 9.30pm. It is sometimes called later. I wanted to go to bed and not be disturbed by the noise of roll call. I had walked about 10 miles altogether. I had not walked very much on the previous days. The walking caused my feet to swell and became very painful. I had a limp. I met Lieut Marsham and we went along to my room together. He certainly did not arrest me. I walked about 25 yards with him. He put me under arrest on arrival at my room in charge of Lieut Drummond. I undressed and got into bed. I had no difficultly doing so. When I was in bed Lieut Densham arrived. While this officer was there I got out of bed to relieve myself. I had nothing on my feet at the time. I was walking on bare boards. It is almost impossible to move about the room without touching furniture. It is almost certain I touched the dressing table. I believe I am always fairly merry. I was not in any way drinking or used bad language. I was not insubordinate. I obeyed the only order given to me. I was perfectly capable of carrying out any duty I might have been detailed for”.

Crossexamined by the Prosecutor.

“I was not in hospital for trench feet. I believe there is a rule against drinking alcohol out of hospital. I am not sure. I had been there about two and a half months. I did not always take alcohol when I went out. I had not had a drink for about 3 weeks before July 8th. I certainly had no more than four whiskey and sodas. They were single ones. I was at the Sun Inn 25 minutes. Lieut Marsham did not assist me in any way to my room. I was unsteady on my feet but that was due to the swelling. My speech may have been a little excitable but he could certainly have understood what I said. I don’t think I repeated the remark about Huns more than twice. It is just a little expression I use. I always assist myself by the chest of drawers which is in such a position that one has to do so to get into bed”.

Reexamined by his Counsel.

“It was a very hot day and the heat of the wards would affect my feet”.

Examined by the Court.

“I had trench feet in 1917. I was discharged from hospital in February 1918”.

The evidence of the accused is read to him. R.P, 83/131 is complied with. The accused withdraws from the place from which he has given his evidence.

The accused withdraws.

Closing Arguments:

Prosecutor

“In this case I submit the prosecution has proved that the accused Is guilty of the charge of drunkedness alleged against him”.

“I would ask the court to review the evidence for the prosecution”.

“The first witness considered it his duty to place the accused under an arrest. He states that he was drunk and based this one the fact that he was staggering in his gait, (which he did not do so normally), was abnormal in his speech, and was not fit to fulfill Military duty”.

“The second witness not only corroborates this evidence but amplifies it. He states that accused was drunk & bases such statement on the fact that there was a strong odour of alcohol that his remarks were rambling that his gait was unsteady & that his general appearance was that of drunkedness. This witness is a qualified Medical Practitioner”.

“The 3rd witness I called forward to the Courts Ruling. He states that the account was in bed & that he did not see him walk. He states that his remarks were superficial but that accused was not drunk & could have if ordered pulled himself together sufficiently to carry out military duty. The witness states he would not express his opinion as to this fitness”.

“The first 2 witnesses both gave their evidence frankly & openly & I suggest we must believe them in preference to the 3rd witness who only saw him in bed”.

“The accused did not call any other evidence than himself. Take the evidence. He denies being drunk but admits he has “3 or 4” whiskies and sodas between 8.30 and 8.55pm. That is 4 whiskey and sodas in 25 minutes. I suggest this is a good deal & I submit it is quite enough to make a man of the accused’s age drunk”.

“I must ask the Court to find the accused guilty of the charge”.

Counsel for the Accused

“A man is either drunk or sober according to English Military Law. Once the accused had been placed under arrest there was no opportunity for retraction. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused was drunk. They have failed to do so. The accused had trench feet and this because they were sore with walking. That is a reasonable explanation of his unsteady gait. In the room the accused was walking on bare boards with bare feet. As regards the words used we all have our own catch phrases which we use. No one denies that the accused behaved in a perfectly respectful and subordinate manner. He was not abusive or used bad language”.

“Lieut. Marsham has only known the accused for two or three weeks and so is not in a good position to judge the accused’s speech. This also applies to the Doctor on account of his deafness. Lieut Drummond had the accused under observation longer than anyone and he says the accused was not drunk”.

Decision of Court Martial

After due consideration, the Court Martial President presented the verdict to the Court - Not Guilty.

William found NOT GUILTY at Court Martial

The General Court Martial of Lieut. William Slade Vincent M.C. [184] was fully documented.

------------------------------
[184] National Archive of UK – Service Record William Slade Vincent